When Art and Film Begin to Define Our Jesus

A biblical, historical, and pastoral reconsideration

After talking with a brother about why I no longer use images of Jesus' face in any art form, including music videos, I thought I would write a blog on the subject. In an age saturated with images, it feels almost strange, even extreme, to question whether Christians should depict Jesus at all. Paintings, children’s Bibles, memes, movies, and television series present us with faces, voices, emotions, and mannerisms, all claiming explicitly or implicitly to show us Christ. For many believers, these images feel helpful, moving, even spiritually enriching, yet Scripture never encourages us to see Jesus in this way. This is not a call to legalism, nor an accusation of idolatry toward those who differ. It is an invitation to pause and ask a deeper question: How does God intend His people to know, love, and worship His Son, and what happens when we substitute that means with images?

God’s Concern Has Never Been Artistic Skill, but Human Hearts

The Second Commandment does not merely forbid worshiping false gods; it addresses how easily the human heart attaches itself to visible substitutes for the true God.

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image. You shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Exodus 20:4-5).

What is striking is that God does not separate the making of the image from the bowing to it. The danger is not only the act of worship, but the act of creating something visible that invites devotion, reliance, or reverence. Deuteronomy 4 clarifies this logic further. When God revealed Himself at Sinai, Moses reminded the people that they saw no form, only heard a voice. Therefore, they were not to act corruptly by making an image of Him. God grounds the command not in fear of art, but in the reality that He chose to reveal Himself by His Word, not by a visible likeness. The golden calf incident confirms this. Israel did not believe they were abandoning Yahweh; they were attempting to worship Him through a visible form. Aaron even declared a “feast to the LORD.” Their sin was not atheism, it was replacing God’s self-revelation with a representation that felt accessible, controllable, and emotionally satisfying.

The Incarnation Did Not Give Us a Face It Gave Us a Person Revealed by the Word

Some argue that the incarnation changes everything. God became man. Jesus was seen, touched, and heard. Therefore, they say, depicting Him is fundamentally different from depicting the invisible God of the Old Covenant. But Scripture never draws that conclusion. The New Testament gives us no physical description of Jesus; literally none. Not His height, build, complexion, eye color, or facial features. That omission is not accidental. The apostles encountered the incarnate Christ and yet chose to testify to Him through proclamation rather than portraiture.

Faith comes by hearing, not seeing (Romans 10:17). Even those who saw Jesus in the flesh were warned not to cling to Him according to outward appearance (2 Corinthians 5:16). After the resurrection, Christ’s body was glorified, no longer bound by ordinary categories, and yet still no image was given to the church. The incarnation did not authorize us to imagine Christ; it authorized us to preach Him.

Images Do Not Remain Neutral They Form the Imagination and Shape Affection

One of the most overlooked aspects of this conversation is emotional formation. Human beings are not primarily shaped by what they know intellectually, but by what they see repeatedly and respond to emotionally. When an image of Jesus hangs on a wall or appears on a screen, something often happens unintentionally. Reverence stirs, and affection follows. A sense of nearness or comfort is felt.

And yet, that image is not Jesus. We do not have photographs of Christ. Every depiction, whether painted, filmed, or drawn, is an act of imagination supplied by an artist’s culture, theology, assumptions, and emotional tone. Over time, the heart begins to associate Jesus with that face, that voice, that temperament. The image begins to function as a mental stand-in. This is fundamentally different from looking at a photograph of a loved one. A picture of one’s child corresponds to a real, known appearance. A picture of Jesus does not recall reality; it constructs one. The concern is not malicious intent. The concern is that affection, awe, and devotion responses rightly directed toward Christ Himself are being trained through something He never gave His church.

Why Film and Media Intensify the Problem

Visual media magnifies this issue exponentially. An actor portraying Jesus does not merely show a face; he supplies a personality, emotional cadence, expressions, and reactions. Viewers are moved sometimes deeply. Tears are shed. Hearts swell. And while the response feels spiritual, the question must be asked: Who is actually shaping that response? Scripture does not give us Jesus’ tone of voice or facial expressions for a reason. When those gaps are filled by actors and directors, the imagination is discipled by interpretation rather than revelation. The Word slowly yields its formative power to images. This is not a hypothetical danger. Many believers today can vividly recall scenes from films about Jesus more easily than they can recall His words from Scripture. That should make us stop and think, did God intend for us to replace His Word or draw conclusions of His word through others' interpretations?

Early Christian Caution Was Rooted in This Very Concern

It is true that early Christians produced art, and archaeological evidence confirms this. But it is equally true that early Christian leaders expressed concern about images in worship precisely because of their formative power. A local council in the early fourth century warned against placing images in churches lest what is worshiped be painted on walls. Later generations would fiercely debate this, culminating in the icon controversies of the eighth century. The heart of the debate was not aesthetics; it was theology and anthropology. How does the human heart relate to God, and what role should visible representations play in that relationship? Even those who eventually defended icons acknowledged the danger. The concern was never imaginary. History demonstrates that veneration easily slides into reliance, and reliance into superstition.

This Is Not About Rules, but Wisdom

Choosing not to depict Jesus is not a claim to moral superiority. It is a personal posture of caution rooted in three convictions:

First, God is jealous over how He is known. He has given us Scripture, preaching, prayer, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper as the ordained means by which Christ is made known to His people.

Second, the human heart is easily misdirected. What we see repeatedly shapes what we love instinctively.

Third, Jesus does not need our help to be made accessible. He has already given His church everything necessary to know Him truly.

Abstaining from images is not a denial of Christ’s humanity; it is a refusal to replace God’s chosen means of revelation with our own.

A Personal Invitation, Not a Universal Mandate

This is not a call to police others’ consciences. Scripture does not command believers to destroy every image, nor does it provide a checklist for artistic expression. But it does repeatedly warn against substituting visible aids for trust in the unseen God. For some, the wisest path may be to reconsider how images of Jesus function in their spiritual life. Not out of fear but out of love for truth. Not to prove faithfulness but to guard it. Next time you see a meme, music video, or television show, pause and reflect on how you respond differently, and since that is not Jesus you are looking at, could there be a boundary we have crossed emotionally and biblically? Because we are dealing with God here, I believe we need to be more cautious in our dealings.

The question is not, “Is this technically allowed? "The question is, 'Is this helping me know Christ as He has revealed Himself, or am I being shaped by something else?” That question is worth sitting with. It was another brother who helped me sit with the question as I had never thought about it before. I am grateful that "iron sharpens iron" and for God's grace as we are all working it out together.