I always enjoy the annual “year in review” articles and TV shows that run in abundance in late December, so I thought I’d contribute my own. Several Mailbag articles were among this year’s most popular, so I decided to make two separate lists, the Top 10 Mailbag Articles of 2019, and the top 10 non-Mailbag articles of 2019. Here are my ten most popular non-Mailbag blog articles from 2019:
There are also occasional comments and messages from women who are disciples of the false teachers I warn against, who take me to task for doing so. The same unscriptural accusations are raised again and again against me and against others who take a biblical stand against false teachers and false doctrine. Here, in no particular order, are the most frequently raised objections to my discernment work and my answers to them…
False teachers. You canโt throw a rock out the windowย these days without hitting one. But are there any โgood guysโ out there who are getting it right? Discipleship, Bible study,and theological issues bloggers who rightly divide Godโs word? You bet…
Unfortunately, Christineโs teachings and some of her actions do not meet even these basic biblical standards, and it is my sad duty to recommend that you not sit under her teaching for the following reasons…
Since the discussion of the events and commentary surrounding the open letter have mostly taken place on Twitter, and many who have an interest in these events and comments are not Twitter users, this article is intended to be a timeline outlining the sequence of events, beginning with the publication of the open letter.
For these reasons it is my sad duty to recommend that you not follow Beth Moore or receive any teaching from her or anyone connected to Living Proof Ministries.
Should she repent in these areas in which she has broken Scripture and align herself with biblical principles, she would have no bigger fan than I, and I would rejoice to be able to point Christian women to her as a doctrinally sound resource. Until that time, however, it saddens me to have to recommend that Christian women not follow Priscilla Shirer or any materials or activities from Going Beyond Ministries for the following reasons…
For these reasons, plus her habitual mishandling of Scripture, unfortunately, I must recommend that women not follow, support, or receive teaching from Lysa TerKeurst or Proverbs 31 Ministries(including any writers or speakers affiliated with Proverbs 31 Ministries)…
I always enjoy the annual “year in review” articles and TV shows that run in abundance in late December, so I thought I’d contribute my own. Several Mailbag articles were among this year’s most popular, so I decided to make two separate lists. Check out myย top 10 non-Mailbag articles of 2019 tomorrow. Here are my ten most popular Mailbag blog articles from 2019:
Wife of Todd Smith of the Christian music group, Selah, Angie started out as a blogger, then blossomed into a Christian author and speaker. Her best known book to date is a womenโs study: Seamless: Understanding the Bible as One Complete Story…
Todd says Rick isn’t a heretic?…Sharply, yet gently, rebuking false teachers…What is an Enneagram?…Books vs. interactions…Should I leave my women’s Bible study group?
Jennifer Kennedy Dean, Lisa Harper, Karen Kingsbury, Rebekah Lyons, Raechel Myers, Shauna Niequist, Jennifer Rothschild, Susie Shellenberger, Sheila Walsh, Amanda Bible Williams
(After today, I’ll be retiring this article. Thanks to Project Breakdown, I have completed updated, individual articles on each of these teachers which you may access at the Popular False Teachers and Unbiblical Trends tab at the top of this page, or by entering the teacher’s name in the search bar.)
If you have a question about: a Bible passage, an aspect of theology, a current issue in Christianity, or how to biblically handle a family, life, or church situation, comment below (Iโll hold all questions in queue {unpublished} for a future edition ofย The Mailbag) or send me anย e-mail or private message. If your question is chosen for publication, your anonymity will be protected.
When people use the term “X-mas” instead of “Christmas,” isn’t that taking Christ out of Christmas? Should Christians use the term “X-mas”?
What a great Christmas time question! Itโs kind of understandable that people would think that the “X” in X-mas is removing Christ or genericizing Christmas. We use the letter X as an unknown variable in math. We might see a detergent commercial in which one of the bottles is labeled โbrand Xโ instead of its real name. So it can kind of seem like X is a place-filler or that it can stand for practically anything.
But thatโs not the case with the X in X-mas. That X has a finite value. X = 1, the One and only, Jesus Christ. How do we know that?
The “X” in “X-mas” has a finite value. X = 1, the One and only, Jesus Christ.
In Greek, the original language of the New Testament, the word for โChristโ is ฮงฯฮนฯฯฯฯ, which begins with the Greek letter that is essentially the same letter as the English letter X. So, originally, Xmas was simply an abbreviation of Christmas. No grand conspiracy to take Christ out of Christmas. Just an abbreviation.
What this means is that, in the term X-mas, rather than the letter X taking Christ out of Christmas, the letter X actually stands for Christ. It is used in the same way that we might use “H.S.” to stand for “Holy Spirit” or “OT/NT” to stand for “Old Testament” or “New Testament” when we’re writing informally (I’ve never actually heard someone say X-mas, H.S., OT/NT, have you?), we’re pressed for space, and the people in our audience probably know what those letters mean.
Rather than the letter X in “X-mas” taking Christ *out* of Christmas, the letter X actually stands *for* Christ.
But it’s obvious from the number of people questioning the term “X-mas” as “taking Christ out of Christmas,” that most people – in any audience – don’t know what that letter means. So we need to go a bit further.
Is it possible that advertisers or atheists or others with an active, outward animosity toward the things of God are using the term “X-mas” as a way to mention Christmas without actually having to write the letters in the word “Christ”? To intentionally try to “take Christ out of Christmas”? Yes, it’s possible. But it’s a pretty silly thing to do if you think about it. Everybody who sees “X-mas” in their ad or e-mail or whatever they’ve written knows they mean Christmas, they know they mean Christmas, and, as we’ve just seen, the “X” means “Christ”. So what is the ever-lovin’ point? To parade their “Ooooo, I’m gonna stick it to Christians” pettiness and intolerance before the world?
Yes, such people exist, but I really believe, for the moment anyway, that, despite what it may look like on the news or social media, they’re still the fringe minority. It seems to me that most regular non-Christians who use the term “X-mas” simply do so to save time and space in whatever they’re writing. When I Googled “X-mas,” the two main uses I saw for the term were a) articles with titles like, “Why Do People Use X-mas Instead of Christmas?” and b) space-saving product descriptors (ex: xmas tee- red, LS/SS S,M,L) on sales websites.
But what about Christians using the term “X-mas”?
There is nothing fundamentally sinful or unbiblical about using the term “X-mas” (especially since the X stands for Christ) when necessary since there’s no Bible verse or principle that prohibits it. I have occasionally used both “Xmas” and “Xian” (Christian) on Twitter due to the character limit. My audience is mostly mature Christians (many of whom know what X-mas means), and my theology is an open book to the public, so no one could credibly accuse me of trying to take Christ out of Christmas (or Christian).
But there are a couple of other issues we should think about when it comes to the term “X-mas”.
The first issue is weaker brothers. If you’re not familiar with God’s admonition to us to lay down our Christian liberties so as not to wound the faith of new Christians or Christians who have a weakness of conscience in a particular area, I encourage you to study 1 Corinthians 8 and 1 Corinthians 10:23-33.
But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.
1 Corinthians 8:9
If you know that a recipient of your annual Christmas newsletter or someone at church who sees your flier for the upcoming “X-mas Party” is going to be offended by your use of “X-mas” because they don’t understand that it’s not unbiblical, and that your’e not waging some sort of “war on Christmas,” just don’t use it. Why cause unnecessary offense over something so insignificant? Why not take a small, loving step toward living at peace with our weaker brothers and sisters? (I know it can be tough. I need a lot of improvement in this area, myself!)
The second issue has nothing to do with theology, but as an advocate for good writing, I feel I must mention it. Using “X-mas” in anything but the most informal pieces of writing (text messages, social media posts, a note to your husband, a label on your ornament storage container, etc.) looks sloppy and lazy, especially if your writing reaches a moderate to large audience. If you wouldn’t use abbreviations like “TBH” (to be honest) or “IMHO” (in my humble opinion) in what you’re writing, don’t use “X-mas”.
Merry Christmas!
If you have a question about: a Bible passage, an aspect of theology, a current issue in Christianity, or how to biblically handle a family, life, or church situation, comment below (Iโll hold all questions in queue {unpublished} for a future edition of The Mailbag) or send me an e-mail or private message. If your question is chosen for publication, your anonymity will be protected.
Was Jesus really born in a barn? Did the angels actually sing? How many wise men were there, really?
There are lots of components of the Christmas story that we’ve come to accept as gospel truth, but that the Bible doesn’t actually teach. Here are some great resources to help us better understand the details surrounding the biblical account of the birth of Christ.
Did Mary ride a donkey to Bethlehem?
The Bible doesn’t tell us, so we don’t know for sure. She could have ridden a donkey. She could have ridden in a cart. She could have walked. All Scripture tells us is that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem. It doesn’t say how they got there.
Was Mary in active labor when she and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem?
It makes for dramatic nativity movies, but it’s very unlikely. God Himself had given Joseph the enormous and grave task of taking care of Mary and Jesus. You’ve seen first time dads and the weight of responsibility they feel to protect and provide for their wives and their own babies. This was God’s Son. Joseph must have been quaking in his sandals to make sure he got everything right. He certainly would not have waited until Mary was near her due date and risked her delivering the baby in the open country on the trip (not to mention outside of Bethlehem, which would have failed to fulfill prophecy).
Luke 2:6 says:
And while they were there [in Bethlehem], the time came for her to give birth.
“While they were there,” not “as soon as they got there.” “The time came,” not “IT’S TIME, JOSEPH! Find me a room NOW!” The phraseology of this verse suggests that Mary and Joseph spent some time in Bethlehem before Jesus was born. Rather than taking Mary to Bethlehem at the last minute, it’s much more likely that Joseph carefully prepared for the trip, made sure to get there with plenty of time to spare, and made arrangements to stay in Bethlehem until the baby was born.
Was Jesus born in a barn or stable? And what about that innkeeper?
And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.
To our western minds, an inn is like a hotel – a business that rents rooms to travelers. But in biblical times, the cultural rules of hospitality dictated that travelers stay with family, friends, or anyone, even strangers, who would extend hospitality to them. Thus, there was no hotel-like “inn” in Bethlehem, and, of course, no innkeeper.
The Greek word kataluma, usually rendered as “inn” in Luke 2:7 is more accurately rendered “guest room” or “upper room” (of a home) – the same sort of “upper room” Jesus used for the Last Supper. (In fact, the Legacy Standard Bible -one of the most accurate translations available today- renders kataluma as “guest room”, not “inn,” as does Young’s Literal Translation {“guest chamber“}, and several other translations. The ESV cross references Luke 22:11.)
One of Joseph’s relatives would have welcomed him and Mary into their home when they got to Bethlehem. But because Bethlehem was packed with visitors arriving for the census, the guest room of the home they stayed in was likely already full. So instead of giving birth in the crowded upper room of the home, Mary moved to the lower room. This lower room would have had space for the animals to be brought in at night, complete with a feed trough (manger), giving her a convenient cradle for the little Lord Jesus to lay down His sweet head. Jesus was not born in the kind of barn or stable we think of in America and usually see in traditional nativity scenes.
Matthew 2:11 tells us that the magi visited Jesus in a house. I think a strong argument can be made that this was the same house Jesus was born in. Consider the timeline:
Luke 2:4-7: Jesus is born in a house in Bethlehem.
Luke 2:21: Jesus is circumcised (8 days old). Although it’s possible they moved to another house in those eight days, logistically, it seems unlikely.
Luke 2:22-38: Joseph and Mary take Jesus to the temple in Jerusalem for Mary’s purification ceremony (33 days after Jesus’ birth) and for the dedication of their firstborn. Jerusalem was only 6 miles from Bethlehem. Mary and Joseph knew the law and knew they would have to participate in these ceremonies. They were most likely initially planning to return to Nazareth at some point after this, over a month after Jesus’ birth. It would have made the most sense for them to stay put in the house where Jesus was born until after these ceremonies (although, again, the possibility exists that they could have gone to stay at the home of another relative during that time).
Some time elapses. We don’t know how much, but we do know it was under two years because Herod has all the Bethlehemite babies under two years old slaughtered (Matthew 2:16). Though Scripture doesn’t tell us definitively, it’s likely that Herod gave himself some margin for error for Jesus’ age and it was more like one year.
There could be any number of reasons Mary and Joseph stayed in Bethlehem that long – if it was that long – in the same house where Jesus was born (for example: more work opportunities for Joseph, getting out of Nazareth where they might have been suspected of fornication and outcast, etc.), and it was not unheard of for houseguests to stay for extended periods of time.
Matthew 2:1-12: Magi visit Jesus in Bethlehem in a house (11) less than two years after Jesus was born. Again, unless they moved to another relative’s house, it makes sense that they were still staying in the house where Jesus was born. Joseph and Mary were poor, and if their intent was to live in Bethlehem, they might not have gotten settled enough, financially and logistically, to get their own house yet.
Matthew 2:13-15: Flight to Egypt. The way it’s worded it sounds like this happened fairly soon (like, within a couple of days, max) after the magi left.
We can’t say definitively – because Scripture doesn’t say definitively – but the scenario of Jesus being born in the same house the magi eventually visited seems to be a good fit with the details Scripture does definitively give us.
Did Mary ride a donkey to Bethlehem? Was she in active labor when she arrived? Was Jesus born in a barn/stable? And what about that innkeeper? Time to bust some popular Christmas myths!
The cattle are lowing, the baby awakes But little Lord Jesus, no crying He makes
Until I started researching this article, I didn’t realize that some people think Jesus never cried as a baby because of these two lines from the Christmas carol Away in a Manger.
I don’t think that was the hymnist’s intent. The stanza reads as though, in that particular moment when He woke up, Jesus was content and happy, not that He never ever cried.
Furthermore, we know from Scripture that Jesus was not only fully God, He was also fully human. Human babies cry when they’re hungry or tired or sick or in pain or a thousand other scenarios. That’s how they communicate. Jesus was a real live human baby who cried, nursed, spit up, burped, needed His diaper changed, fell down when He was learning to walk, and had to be potty trained. The only type of crying we know He never did was sinful crying – because He didn’t get His own way, because He was angry and frustrated, etc. – since we know Jesus was without sin.
Hark! Did the “herald angels” actually sing?
It’s possible, but we don’t know for sure. We know that the gloria in excelsis deo proclamation was spoken to the shepherds because Luke 2:13-14 says.
And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, โGlory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!โ
But it also says they were praising God. In the Bible, though praise can be expressed in many ways, singing is one of the most common and natural ways of praising God. So while we know the angels weren’t singing exclusively, there’s no reason they couldn’t have been singing at some point.
At least two (because the Bible speaks of them in the plural), but possibly a whole passel of them. Our minds are set to “three” because the Bible mentions that they brought three gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh, because of Christmas carols like We Three Kings, and because every nativity set comes equipped with three wise men. But it’s just as possible that two wise men gave three gifts, or that three gifts were given corporately by a larger group of wise men.
Did Jesus cry as a baby? Hark! Did the “herald angels” actually sing? Just how many wise men *were* there, exactly? Ready to bust some Christmas myths? Check this out!
The end of Luke 2 tells us the story of Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to the temple to offer the appropriate sacrifice for Him as “the first male to open the womb”. While they’re there, Simeon shows up and prophesies over Jesus and Mary. And “at that very hour” Anna also “began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.” But nowhere does the passage even hint that they were married to each other, or that they even knew one another.
I think a lot of people mentally marry Anna to Simeon because their stories are back to back, because they showed up at the temple at the same time, and because we tend to assume they were both elderly. (Anna was at least 84, but, technically, we’re never told Simeon’s age or that he was elderly.) But verse 37 clearly tells us that Anna “lived as a widow”. She wasn’t married to anyone, including Simeon.
How many babies were murdered in the slaughter of the innocents?
Matthew 2:16 tells us that an enraged King Herod “sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under” in an attempt to murder Jesus. We tend to think of scores, even hundreds, of babies being murdered in this event which has come to be known as “The Slaughter [or Massacre] of the Innocents.” But as the beloved Christmas carol states, it’s “O little town of Bethlehem”. Bethlehem had a population of approximately 1500. Statistically speaking, scores or hundreds of baby boys age two and under in a population that size would have been impossible. Twelve to fifteen – still a horrifying tragedy- would be more accurate.
Does Christmas have pagan origins, and does that mean Christians shouldn’t celebrate it?
No, and no. Christians celebrating the incarnation of Christ is Christian, not pagan, and Christians are free to celebrate (or not) Christ’s incarnation any day of the year, including December 25.
Do some aspects of the celebration of Christmas find their origin in millennia-old paganism? Possibly. But are you participating in that paganism if you put up a tree or give gifts at Christmas? Probably not. The โChristmas is paganโ lore is so ancient and uncertain that most people arenโt even aware of it. How could you possibly be participating in paganism if youโre not even aware of its existence, you have no intention of participating in it, and it has nothing to do with your reasons for celebrating?
Does Christmas have Catholic origins, and does that mean Christians shouldn’t celebrate it?
Maybe you’ve heard people say that the word โChristmasโ means โChristโs mass,โ so Christmas is Roman Catholic and Christians shouldnโt celebrate it or use the word โChristmasโ.
Itโs true that the word โChristmasโ is a shortened form of โChristโs massโ. It first appeared in English usage as Crฤซstesmรฆsse in 10381, and, at that time, it did refer to the Roman Catholic mass celebrating the birth of Christ.
Youโll note that 1038 was long before the Protestant Reformation. In 1038, Roman Catholicism was the primary manifestation of any form of Christianity. There was no other church. So, at that time, if you were going to refer to a religious observance of the birth of Christ, you naturally would have couched it in Catholic vernacular. You would not have had any other frame of reference for Christianity.
But the word โChristmasโ has come a long way in the last thousand years. It no longer refers exclusively or primarily to a Roman Catholic mass. It refers to all kinds of things surrounding December 25 and the birth of Christ, from a Christmas worship service at your own doctrinally sound church to Christmas sales, presents, trees, carols, 5Ks, parties and everything else under the sun that takes place this time of year. Itโs perfectly fine for Christians to use the word โChristmasโ. I mean, โThursdayโ started out as โThorโs Day“. Itโs actually named after a false god, and none of us bat an eye when it rolls around every week, so why would โChristmasโ be problematic?
But if you have a sensitive conscience and it bothers you to use the word โChristmas,โ why not try on โIncarnation Dayโ and see how it fits? Or maybe โNoelโ? It derives from Old French and means โbirthโ or โbirthdayโ1.
As for celebrating Christmas, itโs not required by Scripture, so you donโt have to observe the day if you donโt want to, but I would plead with you, donโt use โbecause itโs Catholicโ as your reason. Donโt dignify that evil, apostate religious system โ which has sent millions to Hell โ with the power to be a factor in your spiritual decision making. Donโt let it keep you from celebrating the birth of your Lord in the biblical way of your choosing. They donโt have that right, and you shouldnโt give them that power. I would encourage you to read my article Is Christmas Pagan?. Everything in it applies to Catholicism as well.
Does Jeremiah 10:3-4 (and other passages) prohibit Christmas trees?
for the customs of the peoples are vanity. A tree from the forest is cut down and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move. Jeremiah 10:3-4
Itโs imperative to look to Scripture to make sure that none of our Christmas traditions conflict with Godโs Word. But we need to make sure we’re handling God’s Word rightly and in context.
If we read all of Jeremiah 10, it’s very clear that the entire chapter is talking about idol worship. The English Standard Version even has a little heading at the top that says, โIdols and the Living Godโ.
Verses 3-4 of Jeremiah 10 are not referring to Christmas trees. They’re talking about ancient pagans – not Christians – chopping down trees to create wooden idols to worship, not chopping down a tree and decorating it – as is – in honor of the birth of Christ, or for any other reason. Itโs talking about the crafting of wooden idols.
We know this because of the phrase in verse 3, “worked by the hands of a craftsman”. Some translations render it “a craftsman shapes it with his chisel”. The craftsman carved a piece of wood into an idol which was then often dipped into or plated with gold or silver. This is exactly whatโs being described in verses 8-9:
the instruction of idols is but wood! Beaten silver is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz. They are the work of the craftsman and of the hands of the goldsmith; their clothing is violet and purple; [the clothing the craftsman would dress the idols in] they are all the work of skilled men.
Idol worship is the “custom of the peoples (pagans) that is vanity,โ as it says in verse 3, and that is what God prohibits in this passage, not Christmas trees.
Neither do the passages of Scripture that refer to idol worship taking place under โevery green treeโ prohibit Christmas trees. I can only surmise this false belief came into being because โevery green treeโ sounds like โevergreen tree,โ which is what Christmas trees are. There are several verses that use this phrase, โevery green tree.โ Hereโs one of them:
You shall surely destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. Deuteronomy 12:2
Again, all of the verses that use this phrase are talking about idol worship, because thatโs apparently where the idol worship took place. The tree itself wasnโt intrinsically evil, itโs the fact that people were using it in their idol worship.
So, unless you’re worshiping your Christmas tree as an idol, or youโre using your Christmas tree as some sort of altar from which to worship an idol, your Christmas tree itself isnโt evil. You donโt have to have a Christmas tree in your house if you donโt want one, but you canโt use these Scripture passages to justify your choice or to bind the consciences of other Believers.
Isn’t using the term “X-mas” somehow taking Christ out of Christmas?
No. But itโs kind of understandable that people would think that the โXโ in X-mas is removing Christ or genericizing Christmas. We use the letter X as an unknown variable in math. We might see a detergent commercial in which one of the bottles is labeled โbrand Xโ instead of its real name. So it can kind of seem like X is a place-filler or that it can stand for practically anything.
But thatโs not the case with the X in X-mas. That X has a finite value. X = 1, the One and only, Jesus Christ. How do we know that?
In the term X-mas, rather than the letter X taking Christ out of Christmas, the letter X actually stands for Christ.
There are lots of myths about Christmas flying around out there. And there are lots of sentimental and striking details of the Christmas story we’ve come to embrace over the years. But it’s imperative that we get our theology from the Bible, not Christmas carols, traditions, and assumptions. Yet even more important than donkeys and stables and trees is why Jesus came – to save sinners like you and me.
The “Advent Traditions” segment of Dr. James White’s podcast is the segment relevant to this article. It runs from 0:00 – 13:44.
Please note, I am not thoroughly familiar with the theology of every site linked above. I have only vetted the specific articles that are linked. I do not endorse anything at the sites above that conflict with my theology as outlined in my “Statement of Faith” and “Welcome” tabs at the top of this page. Please reject any theology you may come across at these sites that conflicts with God’s Word.
Have you ever heard someone say that nativity scenes, Christmas ornaments, Christmas pageants, and other Christmas items or activities which portray the baby Jesus (with a figurine, a doll, a live baby, pictures, etc.) break the second Commandment even though the portrayal of the baby Jesus isn’t being worshiped?
Some of my brothers and sisters in Christ believe that any representation of Jesus – be it in a manger scene, a painting, a movie, pictures of Jesus in children’s Bibles, flannelgraphs, Bible story pictures used for teaching children or on the mission field, etc. – violates the second Commandment…
You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Exodus 20:4-6
…whether or not that representation of Jesus is being worshiped. It is the mere act of making or displaying the representation which breaks the Commandment.
This is not something any church I’ve ever been a member of has taught, but because I’ve heard this point of doctrine from theologically sound friends I respect, I wanted to take a closer look at the pertinent Scriptures to make sure I wasn’t doing something wrong. I’ve had nativity scenes and children’s Bibles and used flannelgraphs and been in Christmas musicals that depict Jesus all my life and never gave it a second thought. But if having and doing those things conflicts with Scripture, I want to stop.
But, having examined the Scriptures in context, while I respect and admire my friends’ desire to honor the Lord by not using representations of Him, I simply don’t find that the Bible prohibits occasionally depicting Jesus in reverent, not-for-the-purpose-of-worship ways. Here’s why:
Having examined the Scriptures in context, I simply don’t find that the Bible prohibits occasionally depicting Jesus in reverent, not-for-the-purpose-of-worship ways. Here’s why…
Consider the macro-context of Exodus 20. What was going on in the history and culture of Israel at that time? God was setting Israel apart from other nations as His own special possession and establishing Israel as a nation. And what was the preeminent characteristic that was to set Israel apart from the pagan nations? Israel was to be a witness to all the nations of the one true God. They were not to worship idols (which, at that time, were generally carved figures of created things). Not instead of God. Not in addition to God. Not at all. The second Commandment is a command not to worship carved figures as idols.
2.
Examine the immediate context of Exodus 20:4-6. It follows verses 1-3, which establish the supremacy of God above all other gods, and specifically state that Israel is not to worship any other gods.
3.
Take a close look at the content of Exodus 20:4-6. The passage doesn’t say anything about making a representation of God Himself. Jesus had not yet been born when this was written, so this passage could not have been talking about making a representation of Jesus. It talks about making representations of created things in the sky (planets, the sun, etc.), on the earth, and in the water, and worshiping them. And certainly, calling any graven images “God” and worshiping them as God would also be prohibited (Remember the golden calf incidents?)
4.
It would seem to me that to be consistent in saying “no representations of Jesus” folks who hold to this belief would also have to say “no representations of anything” because what Exodus 20:4 plainly says is “you shall not make for yourself…any likeness of anything.” No photographs of anything, no drawings, paintings, or sculpture of anything, no Xeroxing anything, nothing. In fact, I think that would be closer to the actual wording of the passage than “no representations of Jesus,” which, again, this passage does not mention.
There are at least two occasions in the Old Testament in which God instructs Moses to make a graven figure, and both of these instances are far more conducive to actual worship of the figures than a nativity scene or a Sunday School flannelgraph.
There are at least two occasions in the Old Testament in which God instructs Moses to make a graven figure, and both of these instances are far more conducive to actual worship of the figures than a nativity scene.
The first instance – just five chapters after the second Commandment – is found in God’s instructions for the Ark of the Covenant. God instructs Moses to have the people make two cherubim (angels) for the mercy seat (lid) of the Ark. They were not to worship the cherubim (or the Ark), but the Ark was the holiest object used in Israel’s worship ceremonies. It would have been easy for the people to cross the line and worship it or the cherubim, yet God commanded the making of these not-for-worship figures to point the people to Him. (And guess what was put into the Ark right underneath those graven figures? The two tablets of the 10 Commandments, including the second Commandment.) The second instance was when God instructed Moses to make the bronze serpent. Anyone who had been fatally snake-bitten could look up at the serpent and his life would be spared. How much more likely would an Israelite have been to worship the bronze serpent, commissioned by God and instrumental in saving his life than we are to worship a picture of Jesus in a children’s Bible? Jesus Himself said that this graven figure pointed ahead to His death on the cross, using it as an illustration of His crucifixion. Much like a nativity scene is an illustration of His incarnation. Now, if God Himself commissioned the casting of these figures of created things, not to be worshiped, but as tools to point people to Himself, would it stand to reason that He would prohibit reverent representations of Christ that point to or teach about Him? Comparing the second Commandment with these two instances of graven figures demonstrates to us that God expects His people to be able to distinguish between using objects as tools or illustrations that point to Him and worshiping those objects.
God expects His people to be able to distinguish between using objects as tools or illustrations that point to Him and worshiping those objects.
“But if you see pictorial representations of Jesus, you’ll have those images in your mind, and they’ll pop up in your head while you’re worshiping or praying, and then you’ll be worshiping those mental pictures of Jesus, and that’s a violation of the second Commandment.”
If that’s an issue for you, then you definitely shouldn’t view representations of Jesus. But you need to understand that not everyone’s brain works that way. Sometimes when we’re singing in church, an image of my husband, or children, or a beautiful sunset, or whatever the lyrics evoke will pop up in my head. Does that mean I’m worshiping any of those things? Of course not. And for me – and others, I’m sure – any representation I’ve seen of Jesus that happens to pop into my brain is on the same level as those other things. It’s just some random thing I’ve been reminded of, not something I’m worshiping, and it flits out just as quickly as it flitted in.
“But having a pictorial representation of Jesus in your head is worshiping that image.”
No, that is definitionally not the case. Thinking of something is not the same thing as worshiping it. If it were, we’d be guilty of idol worship every time a picture of anything popped up in our brains. There’s a difference between a picture of something randomly popping up in your mind and intentional, purposeful worship.
“But depicting Jesus pictorially, in a nativity scene, or otherwise, could cause a brother or sister who does believe it’s a second Commandment violation to stumble.”
That’s absolutely true, and for that reason, those of us who have the freedom of conscience to use representations of Jesus ought to fulfill our responsibility to those brothers and sisters in Christ. As I’ve learned more about their side of the issue, I have all but eliminated using pictorial representations of Jesus on my blog, social media, etc. I don’t normally display any representations of Jesus in my home, but if I had a friend coming over at Christmas who was sensitive to this, I would certainly remove the baby Jesuses from all of my nativity scenes until she went home. My freedom of conscience comes with a responsibility of love and concern for my brothers and sisters in Christ.
My freedom of conscience comes with a responsibility of love and concern for my brothers and sisters in Christ.
In the end, this issue is an issue of Christian liberty. It is not a sin nor a violation of the second Commandment to use occasional reverent representations of Christ to point people to Him. It is also not a sin to desire to honor the Lord by refraining from using representations of Christ and finding other ways to point people to Him. Whichever side of the issue we come down on, let us make sure we are respectful and loving to those on the other side, not making a law for them where no law exists, nor accusing one side of sin or the other of legalism.
