We are to rely on the means of grace to portray Jesus as both God and man, not the skill of an artist. Furthermore, we do well to remember that there is a special warning in the second commandment. If we love our neighbors, we ought to warn them of how God views images, not encourage or condone their fashioning imagined pictures of Him.

The ancient Israelites stood alone in their faith and practice. Their neighbors, far and near, were religious and believed — often passionately — in the supernatural, but their religion was superstitious and their gods false.

Paganism is the natural state of fallen man. And a natural impulse of paganism is the making of idols and worshiping with the aid of images. The Israelites had good reason to avoid such practices because of the explicit prohibition of images in the law of Moses, the warnings of the prophets, and the truths revealed to them as the people of the true God.

Tragically — through ignorance, unbelief or willful sin — the children of Israel violated the commandment against images of God to their great harm. Believers today ought to know better but often do the same.

The latest issue of byFaith (3rd Quarter, #65), the denominational magazine of the Presbyterian Church in America,  features an article titled “Expanding the Archive – How Art Can Help Us Love Our Neighbor Better” which was illustrated with an unexceptional Italian Renaissance painting meant to represent the infant Jesus and Mary.

Of course, the painting does no such thing. No artist’s image of Jesus can be a true or accurate — all are based on the artist’s imagination and are necessarily colored by the artist’s culture and prejudices. The image in question portrays a particularly white and European Jesus which must surely be inaccurate in almost every way.

But the issue with images is not just a matter of accuracy. The issue is that we are not meant to know what Jesus looked like, nor are we even meant to try to imagine what Jesus looked like.

How can we say that? Well, the New Testament is utterly silent about his appearance — we have nothing to go on. Westminster Larger Catechism 109 says that among the sins forbidden in the second commandment is “making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever…”

Notice that the “making” of images of any person of the Trinity is prohibited, not just the worshiping of (or by) those images. It is true that the most commonly taken exceptions to the Westminster Standards by PCA teaching elders are to those sections which explicate the second and fourth commandments.

And yes, it is true that many PCA churches have images of persons of the Trinity in their buildings, in their publications, or on their websites. There is seemingly little that can be done about the activities of local churches in these respects unless a presbytery is sufficiently scrupulous.

But the 2017 PCA General Assembly did vote to disapprove a presbytery’s use of an image of Jesus in a presbytery meeting worship bulletin. One assumes that denominational publications and their editors would consider the position of the Westminster Standards and actions of the General Assembly in these matters.

Indeed, in its About Us page online, byFaith says its “readers are serious about the Reformed faith” and that the magazine, in part, seeks to help them “think and speak wisely” to issues “in the world —and in the church.” I would suggest true wisdom is found in obeying God and representing Him as He commands “not by means of dumb images but by the living preaching of his Word,” as the Heidelberg Catechism puts it.

Some may object that the use of images is sometimes pedagogical (for teaching) and therefore allowable. The Standards know nothing of pedagogical use of prohibited images. Some may argue that the byFaith article was about art and therefore the image was merely illustrative. That may be fine for an art textbook, but byFaith is an organ of the denomination, not an art textbook — it is an expression of the faith and convictions of the denomination.

It is notable that the painting in question was produced circa 1500 in Venice. At the same time, the Protestant Reformation was beginning in Europe. Our branch of the Reformation was as much about worship as it was about doctrine, and neither Reformed worship nor Reformed doctrine have had any place for images of Jesus. In fact, turning away from Rome’s sensual, image-driven worship was one of the Reformers’ major emphases.

The theme of the article in question is using art to love one’s neighbor in a better way. May I suggest that using images that purport to represent persons of the Trinity violates the consciences of many of our neighbors: our fellow PCA church members and officers.

Some came out of Roman Catholicism or other traditions that worship in idolatrous ways. Some seek to protect their children from the errors to which they themselves were formerly subjected. Some catechize their children concerning the Bible’s teaching about images. Many teaching and ruling elders consider that countenancing or approving the use of such images by the church or her agencies to be a grievous sin. The consciences of believers must be considered.

There is another reason that love of neighbor — to riff on the article’s title — ought to compel us NOT to employ images which our standards and the Decalogue so clearly prohibit: By our lives, testimonies, and by the ministrations of our churches we are to seek to win our unbelieving neighbors to the living and true God — a God who is spirit and who cannot be pictured or captured in any medium except his Word and sacraments.

We are to rely on the means of grace to portray Jesus as both God and man, not the skill of an artist. Furthermore, we do well to remember that there is a special warning in the second commandment. If we love our neighbors, we ought to warn them of how God views images, not encourage or condone their fashioning imagined pictures of Him.

The ancient Israelites stood alone among their neighbors because of their spiritual worship which did not rely on images. Romanists, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, many Lutherans, and an increasing number of evangelicals rely on images of some form today for liturgical, pedagogical, or devotional use.

We, on the other hand, ought to stand out as those who hold to the Scriptures unashamed of our scripturally-faithful standards. We ought to resist or turn away from employing images which our God hates, especially in the official publications of our church.

Brad Isbell is a ruling elder at Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Oak Ridge, Tenn.; he is also the co-host of the Presbycast Podcast.