.....

Cursed is the man who makes a carved idol or molten image—an abomination to Yahweh, the work of the hands of a craftsman—and sets it up in secret. And let all the people say, “Amen!” —Deuteronomy 27:15

 

 

I

n a previous newsletter (#39), I addressed the sixth commandment, which was poorly translated, “Thou shalt not kill” in the King James Version. I demonstrate that it should have been translated, “Thou shalt not murder.” There’s a big difference between “kill” and “murder,” but our present-day society has essentially merged them into meaning the same thing.

As I was preparing that newsletter, an unexpected controversy arose with regard to the second commandment (Exodus 20:4-6), specifically whether or not it forbids displaying pictures of artists’ conceptions of the Messiah in our homes. Before I proceed any further, let’s read that commandment, as found in the Berean Standard Bible (with proper nouns and titles restored):

4 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in the heavens above, on the earth below, or in the waters beneath.

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, Yahweh your Elohim, am a jealous El, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on their children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,

6 but showing loving devotion to a thousand generations of those who love Me and keep My commandments.

        I should explain that a very dear friend is gracious enough to send us copies of his calendar every year. He’s been doing this for several years, and I’ve always appreciated it. Each month has a picture and an accompanying Bible verse. Last year, I was surprised to see a picture that clearly depicts the creation of Adam, with a man very clearly identifiable as “Jesus” bringing him to life.[1] I was stunned, but at the same time, I was thinking it must have been an honest mistake or maybe an assistant of his put the calendar together, and that assistant doesn’t put the same value on the Ten Commandments that we do. I do not feel comfortable having images of “Jesus” in my home because I believe it’s a violation of the second commandment. Several references, such as our encyclopedias, display paintings of “Jesus,” and I only tolerate those images because I use the references for research purposes, seldom even looking at pictures. I’m not about to go through every reference book on my bookshelves for the purpose of finding pictures of “Jesus” so I can cut them out and burn them. As for the calendar our friend sent us, I decided to burn the facial portion of “Jesus” because I didn’t want to spend the month of March looking at him! That picture is displayed above.

        I didn’t say anything to my friend because, as I mentioned earlier, I assumed it was an honest mistake, and I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, so to speak, especially since he and I agree the Torah was never “done away,” as taught by nominal Christianity. However, the dynamics changed with the calendar he sent us this year! I should interject that usually, before we purchase a calendar, June and I look through all the pictures for each month, just in case we should happen to see one that would cause us to not want to purchase it. I have no idea why, but when we received our friend’s calendar, I didn’t examine any of the pictures. Instead, I promptly found a wall space to hang it, and I only turn to the next month when the month changes. To my surprise, when I opened up the Novem-ber/December 2024 page a few weeks ago, there was another image depicting “Jesus”! I was stunned! This time, “Jesus” is the “fourth man” in Nebuchadnezzar’s fiery furnace.

        As you can see from the picture on the right, I once again burned “Jesus’” facial image, but this time I decided to reach out to my friend in order to get an explanation. I texted him the following question: “I was wondering if you could tell me who the guy in the white robe is?” On the actual calendar, “Jesus’” robe is clearly white, or shall I say was clearly white; I’m guessing the flame of my lighter tainted it when I burned off his face.

        He replied, “Nebuchadnezzar said that whoever it was, that it looked like the son of Elohim [Daniel 3:25]. That picture is just an artist’s conception, but I would think it was a mighty angel, maybe Mikael himself.”

Okay, just to be clear, before I burned “Jesus’” pictorial face, I asked June and another friend if they could identify “who” the man in the white robe is. It was unanimous. It wasn’t just any angel—the “fourth man” is who our culture identifies as “Jesus”—long hair, beard, robe and all. Those facial features, for those who want to dig a little deeper, could not have possibly resembled the Messiah Yeshua. Although Yeshua certainly had a beard, He did not have long hair. I’m pretty sure no angels did, either. For those who might not agree, I could start by quoting 1 Corinthians 11:14, where the Apostle Paul advised the Corinthian brethren that it’s a shame for a man to have long hair. I’ve had a few discussions about this verse with a few long-haired men, one of whom defended his shoulder-length hair by insisting that no one can define (to his satisfaction) just exactly how long “long” is. My response is that Julius Caesar, a pagan emperor, understood the difference. You can’t make it through grade school without seeing photos of either his statue or bust, such as this one on the left, clearly depicting a short-haired man. And his image is but one of many from that time period. So even pagans understood how long “long” is.

        Furthermore, Yeshua could not have had long hair because He wasn’t under a Nazirite vow.  It is true that if He had been under a Nazirite vow, He could not have cut His hair, but neither could He have consumed wine, vinegar, grapes, and other grape products (Numbers 6:1-21). There should be no question that Yeshua partook of wine. I would say that most likely He drank some of the wine that He had converted from water (John 2), but He even directly stated that He drank:

The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Behold, a man, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and of sinners!' – Luke 7:3

        Yeshua wouldn’t have been accused of being a drunkard if He hadn’t been observed drinking with others, so He clearly wasn’t under a Nazirite vow. He therefore had short hair, contrary to the common images we see contrived by men who didn’t seem to know any better.

        Now we need to keep in mind that we worship Yeshua (Heb 1:5-6). Not only is He the Messiah, but if we can believe the Apostle John and the Apostle Paul, He is also our Creator (John 1:3, Colossians 1:13-17). A question arises as to whether or not it’s okay for us to draw pictures or make other images of what we think Yeshua may have looked like. Is it? This is the question that we must answer, and we need to be careful with our answer. Nominal Christianity has absolutely no problems with images, whether it be paintings or statues of the Son of Elohim, and they most likely justify it with their belief that the Law was “done away.” Many within Christianity agree that if the Law had not been “done away,” then it would be wrong to have drawings, paintings, carvings, statues, etc. of Yeshua the Messiah.

        There was a time in my life when I was raised to believe the artists’ conceptions of “Jesus” were, for the most part, accurate. I even remember how, in my youth, I stubbornly refused to get a haircut, letting my hair grow obnoxiously long. That’s right, I was basically a hippie. I now look back on those days with embarrassment. My mother tried to persuade me to get a haircut. She was persistent about it, to the point of trying to embarrass me into getting one. But when I pointed to our painting of “Jesus” on the wall and protested, “Jesus had long hair!” the argument ended. She had nothing more to say. I mean, if “Jesus” had long hair, then there’s nothing wrong with it!!

        But in my youth, I didn’t know anything about Nazirite vows, nor was I aware of the fact that non-Nazirite vow men were expected to have short hair. As an agnostic young man, I certainly had never read 1 Corinthians 11:14. Years later, when I came to understand that the Law was never “done away,” I began to understand the intent behind the second commandment. I understood that Yeshua would not have been accused of being a “winebibber” unless He had imbibed a few alcoholic drinks, so He could not have been under a Nazirite vow. All of this put together means Yeshua could not have had long hair. Now that I know He did not have long hair, I also know Yeshua could not have resembled the many artists’ varied conceptions, all depicting a man with long hair.

        Some will argue that we do not worship those images of a man with long hair, a beard and a white robe with a red sash—that they’re just soft reminders of our faith and trust in our merciful Heavenly Father and His Son. From my own personal experience, I know that’s not really true. I, like many, worshipped “Jesus,” even though I didn’t know “Jesus” is a poor transliteration of the more correct Yeshua. When I looked at those images, including the painting on our wall in my boyhood home, I thought I was looking at an image of the Man who died for my sins, then rose from the dead and ascended to the Father. That sounds like worship to me.

        There’s a reason I’m going to all this trouble to explain that I worshipped the Man behind the image. It turns out the friend I mentioned earlier doesn’t believe having a picture of Jesus on your wall means it’s necessarily an object of worship. I, on the other hand, maintain you don’t have to pray to an image to worship it, and I will freely admit that I never prayed to that painting of “Jesus” that was on the wall in my parents’ home. Even though I didn’t pray to that image, I knew, or shall I say I thought, it was the representation of the Man who died for me and gave me hope for eternal life—the Man I worshipped. But I digress.

        Let’s go back to the calendar my friend sent us and the texting session he and I had. I left off with him informing me that the image on his calendar is “just an artist’s conception,” adding that he would think it’s a mighty angel, maybe Mikael himself. I knew better, June knew better, and our friend knew better. The artist wasn’t trying to capture an image of the angel Michael, the man he had in mind was “Jesus.” In response, I shared the following true story:

     During our first year of keeping the Sabbath, a Lutheran pastor came to our home to persuade us that we had made the wrong decision. He tried to first find some common ground that we could all agree on, so he asked, “Can we at least agree that all foods are clean?” When I was finished with my answer proving how and why we don’t agree, he pointed to the ornate painting on our wall and asked, “Do you realize that’s a violation of the 2^nd commandment?” It was an elaborate painting of Yeshua praying at Gethsemane, which was a gift our sister-in-law from Korea had given us. I replied, “What a coincidence you should mention that! June and I had already decided we’re going to destroy that painting—we just haven’t done it yet!” The pastor got up from his seat, shook my hand, and showed himself to the door. We never saw him again.

        In response to the above, my friend wrote, “That Lutheran pastor probably assumed if you were that careful about the second commandment that there was no use talking to you about the fourth commandment.”

        My friend’s response was encouraging, but within that same text, he wrote, “Concerning whether a picture of Messiah is transgressing the second commandment, I at present would doubt it as it is not exactly a graven image that someone is bowing down to and worshipping.”

        I then asked him, “Do you think it would be okay for June and me to hang a picture of an artists’ conception of Molech on our wall, since we wouldn’t have any intention of bowing down to it and worshipping it?”

He replied, “I would not think it good to hang an artist’s conception of Molech up, as we should not be promoting the adversary’s power or image. In the fiery furnace picture in my calendar, a better depiction of the angel that delivered the Hebrews could have been presented, but I cannot see that it is a bad picture. The painting is getting across the idea of the deliverance of the Hebrews through the help of a divine being.”

        I was surprised by his response, and told him I would reply later. This edition of my Ponder Scripture Newsletter is my reply. First, I am persuaded the angel who delivered the Hebrews is none other than Yeshua the Messiah in His pre-carnal form. I address this belief in my study Did Yeshua the Messiah Have a Pre-Carnal Existence? Thus, the angel who delivered the Hebrews and the fourth Man in the fiery furnace are one and the same: Yeshua the Messiah. Second, many fellow believers who know the “Jesus” picture cannot possibly resemble the true Messiah are persuaded that the image is a part of the elaborate deception that has subliminally prepared the world for the anti-messiah. If a long-haired man with a beard who performs miracles and identifies himself as the Messiah should happen to make an appearance, would you believe he’s the “real deal” or would you recognize him as an imposter? Third, if even liberal Christians are persuaded that displaying pictures of “Jesus” violates the second commandment, then what kind of example are we setting for them by having them on our walls?

 

A One-Part Commandment?

        Third, and even more important, my friend apparently regards the second commandment as a “one-part” commandment instead of a “two-part” commandment. In other words, the sin must involve a combination of making an idol and worshipping it, with the act of worshipping apparently constituting the primary sin. The actual making of the idol isn’t, in his estimation, a sin. It’s only when both parts are combined that sin enters into the equation. I am persuaded that’s a dangerous interpretation. On the other hand, if the commandment is regarded as a “two-part” commandment, it’s a sin to make the idol and it’s equally sinful to worship it.

        From the perspective of the Jewish sages, the second commandment comprises four parts. The following excerpt is taken from The Chumash:

3-6 Second Commandment: Prohibition of idolatry. This commandment comprises four separate negative injunctions: (a) It is forbidden to believe in idols; (b) it is forbidden to make or possess them; (c) it is forbidden to worship them through any of the four forms of Divine service — which are prostration, animal slaughter, bringing offerings or libations of wine or other liquids upon an altar; and (d) it is forbidden to worship an idol by a means that is unique to it, even if such a method is not used for other deities, and even if the service would be considered disrespectful in any other context. For example, the idol Pe’or was worshiped through public defecation, and the believers in Merkulis (Mercury) worshiped it by throwing stones at it. If performed before other idols, such acts would be considered expressions of contempt. But to Pe’or and Merkulis they are the prescribed forms of worship, and are therefore forbidden to those idols. [2]

        I find the first of the above four “negative injunctions” to be quite fascinating. The Jewish rabbi regards the second commandment as inclusive of believing in idols. But that’s not what the verse says. Someone could argue with the rabbi on this point because the second commandment only forbids making the idol and worshipping it. And yet, we should all agree that, indeed, it is a sin to believe in idols. One could also argue with the rabbi’s second point. He says it’s not only forbidden to make idols, it’s also forbidden to possess them. But that’s not what the verse says. The verse doesn’t say it’s a sin to possess an idol or image of an idol!  And yet, we should all agree, deep down in our hearts, that it really is wrong to possess an idol or even display an image of an idol. Why in the world would a believer want to do such a thing? Shouldn’t we hate and despise idols instead of desiring to have them in our possession?

        The rabbinic author concludes his commentary on the second commandment as follows:

The prohibition in this verse refers to all beings of any form that can conceivably be worshiped.[3]

        Even though the Lutheran pastor plainly and quickly regarded our elaborate painting of “Jesus” praying at Gethsemane as a violation of the second commandment, my friend disagrees because we didn’t “worship” the image itself. This is astoundingly bewildering to me. Even the pastor of an antinomian church recognized that if you’re going to preach Torah obedience, you’d better not be hanging pictures of the Man you regard as the Son of the Almighty on your wall. But my friend doesn’t see it that way. There’s a throng of believers, both past and present, who disagree with him.

        Let’s start with the present:  A man named Ray Butterworth supplied a very insightful answer to the Quora forum question, “Is it wrong to have pictures of Jesus in your home?” He gave two reasons explaining why it is indeed wrong. His first reason matches mine, i.e., there’s no way Yeshua could have resembled the long-haired, bearded man in a white robe that we’re all accustomed to seeing. Here’s his second reason:

The second reason it’s wrong to have pictures of Jesus in your home is that doing so could easily violate the second of the Ten Commandments.

 

You shall not make for yourselves idols, nor shall you set up for yourselves an image or a sacred pillar, nor shall you place a figured stone in your land to bow down to it; for I am the LORD your God. — Leviticus 26:1 — NASB.

 

As a Christian, you don’t really need a physical reminder of Jesus. His spirit is supposed to be part of you, continuously there.

 

One might argue that having the picture itself is not a sin. But that would be wrong; its presence is almost certain to affect your behaviour:

 

Do you feel different when you look at it?

Do you look at it when you pray?

If someone were to damage that picture, would it feel worse than if it were some other picture?

Any of those, and others, are indications that you are venerating the picture itself, that you are giving it supernatural attributes. That is the very definition of idolatry.

 

One of the reasons Jesus appeared two thousand years ago was to enable communication with the Father, through Christ. Not only is there no need for physical intermediaries, they are explicitly forbidden.

        I have no idea who Ray Butterworth is, but give him credit for tremendous insight into why it is absolutely wrong—sinful—to display pictures, images, statues, anything resembling artists’ conceptions of what they think Yeshua looked like, both before and during His earthly ministry. How can any professing believer deny that we feel different when we look at the image? I know June and I did; that’s why I had to destroy the picture we had on our wall. Ray, like the Lutheran pastor, agrees that having pictures of Yeshua on our walls constitutes a violation of the second commandment. The mere fact that there’s a faction of Christians out there holding to the view that images of Yeshua go against the second commandment should strike a chord with those who profess to be Torah observant. A strong chord.

        I mentioned there’s a throng of believers, both past and present, who understand (and understood) that it’s wrong to have pictures of Yeshua on our walls, end tables, coffee tables, wherever one can glance and see the One we revere and worship. First century believer Philo agreed that the second commandment includes having images, including pictures:

But while all who give worship and service to sun and moon and the whole heaven and universe or their chief parts as deities (theon), most undoubtedly err by magnifying the subjects above the ruler, their offence is less than that of the others who have given shape to stocks and stones and silver and gold and similar materials each according to their fancy and then filled the habitable world with images and wooden figures and the other works of human hands fashioned by the craftsmanship of painting and sculpture, arts which have wrought great mischief in the life of mankind. For these idolaters cut away the most excellent support of the soul, the rightful conception of the Ever-living Mighty One (Theou). Like boats without ballast they are for ever tossed and carried about hither and thither, never able to come to harbor or to rest securely in the roadstead of truth, blind to the one thing worthy of contemplation, which alone demands keen-sighted vision.[4]

        Please notice that in expounding on the violation of the second commandment, Philo here makes no mention of worshipping the images made by human hands. At this point, he only denounces fashioning these objects, whether it be sculpting, carving or painting. Once he finishes his train of thought regarding the creation of the images, he takes it a step further:

Horrible as all this is, we have not reached the true horror. The worst is still to come. We have known some of the image-makers offer prayers and sacrifices to their own creations though they would have done much better to worship each of their two hands, or if they were disinclined for that because they shrank from appearing egotistical, to pay their homage to the hammers and anvils and pencils and pincers and the other tools by which their materials were shaped.[5]

        In other words, it is bad enough that men would create or draw objects of worship (i.e., a violation of the second commandment), but the very act of worshipping those images is even more egregious. In summarizing Philo's commentary on the second commandment, he certainly rebukes those who worship images, but he likewise deplores their very creation. He doesn't limit the castigation to fashioning statues and carved images, he includes drawing pictures. So to be clear, Philo was certainly opposed to painting images of objects of worship, but even more opposed to the act of worshipping them. Both the creation and subsequent worshipping were equal violations of the second commandment. Would Philo have supported painting an image depicting the Son of the Almighty? There should be no debating that answer.

        Another first-century Jew, Josephus, shared the same regard for the second commandment as Philo. Notice what he wrote in his treatise Against Apion:

Moreover, Apion would lay a blot upon us, because we do not erect images to our emperors, as if those emperors did not know this before, or stood in need of Apion as their defender; whereas he ought rather to have admired the magnanimity and modesty of the Romans, whereby they do not compel those that are subject to them to transgress the laws of their countries, but are willing to receive the honors due to them after such a manner as those who are to pay them esteem consistent with piety and with their own laws; for they do not thank people for conferring honors upon them, when they are compelled by violence so to do. Accordingly, since the Grecians and some other nations think it a right thing to make images, nay, when they have painted the pictures of their parents, and wives, and children, they exult for joy; and some there are who take pictures for themselves of such persons as were no way related to them: nay, some take the pictures of such servants as they were fond of. What wonder is it then if such as these appear willing to pay the same respect to their princes and lords? But then our legislator hath forbidden us to make images, not by way of denunciation beforehand, that the Roman authority was not to be honored, but as despising a thing that was neither necessary nor useful for either the Almighty or man; and he forbade them, as we shall prove hereafter, to make these images for any part of the animal creation, and much less for the Almighty himself, who is no part of such animal creation.[6]

        Josephus here expressed understanding that the Grecians had pictures made of themselves, and even of royalty, which is true and lawful even within Judaism. For example, the temple walls were adorned with images of cherubims, lions and oxen (cf., 1 Kings 6). Clearly, those images were not to be worshipped. We all know the story of how, during Israel’s Wilderness journey, Moses erected a bronze serpent that anyone looking upon it would be healed from a snake bite. It was not an object of worship—that is, until the days of King Hezekiah, who, for that very reason, had it destroyed (2 Kings 18:4). So it’s not that Yahweh doesn’t allow us to draw images or make statues, it’s that we must be careful to not worship them. As for Yahweh and His Son, we worship Them. Why, then, would we be compelled to draw images of what we think They may look like?  Why would we do that?  For what purpose?

        Now if it’s sinful to create or draw images of idols for the purpose of worshipping them, what about those who possess those images that others have drawn and hang them the wall of their home for all to see? Shall we be complicit in the transgressions of others?

        As you can see, many people, including those who teach the law was “done away,” express the understanding that having pictures of “Jesus” on our walls is a violation of the second commandment. That’s simply how we understand Exodus 20:4-5. But it’s not just us! Ancient Judaism had this same understanding. If all these witnesses do not persuade you that it’s a sin to have pictures of “Jesus” or anything that you worship, then might I suggest that if we do err with our personal belief, we nevertheless err on the side of safety?

 

The Commandment That’s Really in Question

        Prior to posting this newsletter article, I sent the preceding portion to my friend so he could read it. Frankly, I thought that if he would read my perspective, he would agree with my position. He does agree that we should err on the side of safety, which is a major step in the right direction, but ultimately, he is persuaded that having a painting of an artist’s conception of Yeshua on your wall is not, in and of itself a sin. We continued our text exchange, and he sent me the following response:

I just read your article above and you quoted how Philo and Josephus, etc. believed it to be sinful to make images or drawings, and I respect their conclusions, and I do not want to offend others in this matter. So I will try to be more careful in the pictures I choose for my calendar in the future. But I [am] still not convinced that it is sin to make an image or drawing of an animal or Yahshua, as I am not worshipping it. I believe it could be sin for some, as the snake Mosheh made became a sin when the people started to worship it. But just the image itself without the worship was not necessarily a sin. You put it best at the end of your article, let’s “err on the side of safety.”

        I was admittedly perplexed that my friend does not share my view regarding the implications of the second commandment, so I decided to present the following hypothetical situation:

I am glad we agree about erring on the side of safety, but I am confused about where you draw the line between what is acceptable versus what is sinful. If I were to envision that Yeshua had an “afro” hairstyle with a goatee, and then I painted such an image of Him, and that night, before going to bed, I prayed to my painting, giving thanks to the image I created and asking Yeshua to protect me while I sleep, at what point did I sin, if at all?

Also, if a friend saw my painting, loved it, and asked me to paint another one for him or her, which I did, and my friend hangs it on the wall of their home, at what point did my friend sin, if at all?

        As with his previous answers, the explanation my friend gave likewise surprised me. Here’s what he wrote:

I would think you sinned in the above scenario when you decided to pray to the image of Yahshua that you created. If your friend never bowed down nor prayed to the painting you gave him I cannot necessarily say he has sinned by hanging the picture on the wall. It could lead to sin so I think it would be best to avoid, but the picture alone without worship is not sin. This is my present understanding.

        His explanation surprises and disappoints me because I know Torah forbids making carved idols or molten (metal) images in the first place. But my friend doesn’t perceive any sin until the image is actually prayed to. Thus, applying such rationale, I could make any image I want, even a man dressed in a red cape with red eyes and horns (our culture’s typical representation of the devil), and so long as I don’t pray to it, I have not sinned. Scripture, on the other hand, makes it clear that even making images merits a curse from the Almighty. Here’s what we read in Deuteronomy 27:15:

15 Cursed is the man who makes a carved idol or molten image—an abomination to Yahweh, the work of the hands of a craftsman—and sets it up in secret. And let all the people say, “Amen!”

        Would my friend argue that the above verse only forbids making an idol if the maker sets it up in secret? That’s where I see this discussion potentially progressing—that it’s okay to make an idol so long as you set it up publicly for all to see! No, the sin is making the idol in the first place. If it’s a sin to make an idol, then why would a believer want to have one in his or her possession? If we detest idols, why would we want to own one?

        What I didn’t tell my friend is the point at which I personally believe I would have sinned by painting an image of the Messiah with an afro hairstyle and a goatee. I am persuaded that the first sin was my imagining such an image of the Messiah. Think of it this way: The Greek word translated “sin” is hamartano, which literally means “miss the mark.” When one envisions what the Messiah looked like, the odds against getting it right are huge. So if I were to imagine that He had an afro hairstyle and a goatee, I’m pretty sure I “missed the mark,” so that would indicate sin. But when I then draw that image, knowing in my heart I’m drawing an image resembling my best guess of what He looked like, and knowing that it is “He” who I worship, I have truly violated the second commandment at that point.

        I can draw, paint, carve and sculpt all sorts of things, such as trees, birds, cows, and even people, but if I single out any of those items as objects of worship, I have violated the second commandment, even if I don’t pray or bow down to them. Here is the response I texted to my friend:

Thank you for answering my questions. If I were to adopt your interpretation of the 2^nd commandment, I would need an approved Scriptural example of believers who ever practiced such an understanding. I think there’s an excellent reason for why we never read of such a practice: Yahweh doesn’t want us to do it. Yahshua could have easily chosen an artist as one of His disciples as a means of preserving His likeness so future believers could know what He looked like. I believe there’s a valid reason why He did not. Tertullian wrote, “ ‘I make,’ says one, ‘but I worship not;’ as if there were some cause for which he dare not worship, besides that for which he ought not also to make—the offense done to the Almighty, namely, in either case.” –On Idolatry, ch. 6

        I have several Scriptural disagreements with trinitarian Tertullian, but we agree that the very act of making or drawing an idol is a grave sin.

        Ultimately, this discussion is traced to the first commandment. The first commandment reads as follows in the Berean Standard Bible:

3 You shall have no other elohim[7] before me.

        Let’s break down this verse. Any artist attempting to create an image of the Almighty is basing his creation on what he imagines the Almighty looks like. If an artist paints a picture of what he thinks the Creator looks like, the final product will resemble whatever his mind dreams up. For example, whoever began creating images of a “fish man” doubtlessly thought he was creating an image representation of the Almighty. However, it was an idol known as Dagon. Whoever contrived the image of a man with a bull’s head, came up with the idol named Moloch. An image of the Babylonian deity named God was found in the ancient Syrian city of Dura Europos, and God is represented by a man with a beard. I can imagine the man who created the image thought he was sculpting a representation of the Almighty. However, it was an idol. The man who created the popular image of the Messiah—a man with long hair and a beard—thought he was painting an image of Yeshua. But did he?

        All the above creations are idols, and yes, that includes the images of “Jesus.” And the very first commandment states that we are not to have any elohim before the Almighty. I find The Chumash’s translation of Exodus 20:3 very intriguing:

3 You shall not recognize the elohim[8] of others in My presence.

        Let’s face it: I’ve established that the popular images of “Jesus” cannot possibly represent what Yeshua looked like. Whoever created that original image, as well as those who create similar versions of it, are in the same proverbial boat as those who create images of the deities they worship, such as Dagon, Moloch, Chemosh, Baal Pe’or and, yes, even the Babylonian deity, God. We are commanded to not have these images in His presence. Since we are always in His presence, what does that say when we display any of these images on our walls for all to see?

        I am persuaded that Deuteronomy 12:2-3 clearly and succinctly reveals Yahweh’s intentions and stops all arguments:

2 Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their elohim, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree:

3 And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their elohim, and destroy the names of them out of that place.

        Let’s break this passage down to its simplest understanding: Yahweh wants nothing left of idols. He wants everything destroyed. Not only does He want their altars and graven images destroyed, but He also wants their names destroyed. Are we supposed to believe that if the Israelites were to have come across a painting of “Jesus,” it would be okay to preserve that “artifact”? 

 

---

[1] I put “Jesus” in quotes because (a) I know He went by Yeshua when He walked this earth in human form, so “Jesus” is a poor transliteration of His actual name, and (b) common images of “Jesus” could not have resembled Yeshua.

[2] From The Chumash: The Stone Edition, by Rabbi Nosson Scherman, Mesorah Publications, Ltd., Brooklyn, NY, 1997, rabbinic commentary on Exodus 20:3-6, p. 408.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Philo, The Decalogue XIV (66-67), translated by F. H. Colson, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998, pp. 39-40.

[5] Ibid, ch. XIV (72), p. 43.

[6] The Works of Flavius Josephus, Vol. IV, “Against Apion,” Book II, § 6, translated by William Whiston, A. M., Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1992, pp. 205-206.

[7] The actual word used in this and most Bibles is “gods.” Since God (גַד) is the name of an idol whose worship Yahweh condemns (Isaiah 65:11-12), and since the actual Hebrew word in Ex. 20:3 is elohim, I have chosen to use the original word. For additional information, please read my study God’s Identity According to Ancient Hebrew Scholars or check out my PowerPoint presentation titled Tracing the Origin of the Word God.

[8] Ibid.