Jesus And Trump

by on April 20, 2026 | Comment

Garrison Keillor used to open his monologues about the fictional town of Lake Woebegon by saying, “It’s been a quiet week in Lake Woebegon” and then go on to explain how it had not actually been quiet. The way the news is these days it is as if we are all bowling pins and the news stories are the bowling balls.

One of the stories that came down the alley concerned an AI-generated image depicting the President of the United States as Jesus, wearing a white robe with a red mantle over his shoulders. The Trump-Jesus figure was depicted placing his right hand on the forehead of someone in a hospital bed and in his left hand is what appears to be a ball of light. He is surrounded by flying eagles, the Statue of Liberty, and military personnel in the air with light behind them. Below are pictured a nurse, a soldier, a woman, and a man.

The President admitted publicly that he posted the image to his Truth Social account. After the image generated backlash he removed it. Later, he explained that he did not think that he had been depicted as a Christ-figure. He said that he thought that he had been depicted as a physician.

The President has some religious education in his background both in the Marble Collegiate Church (RCA) in New York, where he took to Norman Vincent Peale’s messages about the power of positive thinking. He also has a background in the Presbyterian Church in the USA.1

A man of the President’s age and experience has surely seen some of the more popular depictions of our Lord and would recognize a depiction of himself as a Christ-figure. So, his claim does not seem credible. The President seems to enjoy stirring up controversy of this sort so that none of this should be particularly surprising to us. What is of more interest is how people responded. Of course there were denunciations of the image by a wide variety of people. About a day after the image was posted we began to see defenses. They are not consequential and need not delay us here. What is significant is that they occurred.

No Christian, whatever his politics, should defend this image. Why not? First, depictions of any person of the holy Trinity violate the moral law of God which says about depicting God:

You shall not make for yourself any graven 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 yourself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. (Exod 20:4–6; Heidelberg Catechism 92)

The ancient Christian church was united in her conviction that images of God the Son incarnate are forbidden. Hippolytus of Rome (c. AD 170–c. 236) complained, “certain, likewise, of these (heretics) brand their own disciples in the back parts of the lobe of the right ear. And they make counterfeit images of Christ, alleging that these were in existence at the time (during which our Lord was on earth, and that they were fashioned) by Pilate.”2 Just to forestall any misunderstanding, he did not think that there were genuine or legitimate images of Christ.

Lactantius (c. AD 250–c. 325) wrote, “Wherefore it is undoubted that there is no religion wherever there is an image.”3 According to Epiphanius (c. AD 315–c. 403) it was the Gnostics, not the Christians, who made images of Christ.4 There were no ecclesiastically approved images of God in the ancient church until Sixtus III (c. 432–40) instituted a Mosaic in a church in Rome and Gregory I (c. AD 700) approved depictions of Christ as “books for the people.” 5 Even then, images of Christ were hotly contested until the iconodules put down the resistance in the eighth century.6

All this to say that the ancient Christian consensus was against images. The Reformed renewed the ancient iconoclast arguments and all the Presbyterian and Reformed churches agreed on this point, which consensus is reflected in all the Reformed confessions. The language of the Heidelberg Catechism is typical:

96. What does God require in the second Commandment?

That we in no wise make any image of God, nor worship him in any other way than he has commanded us in his Word.

97. May we not make any image at all?

God may not and cannot be imaged in any way; as for creatures, though they may indeed be imaged, yet God forbids the making or keeping any likeness of them, either to worship them, or to serve God by them.

98. But may not pictures be tolerated in churches as books for the people?

No, for we should not be wiser than God, who will not have his people taught by mute idols, but by the lively preaching of his word.

It might be objected that the depiction is of Trump and not Christ. This objection is about as serious as the President’s own defense. The problem is that the President was portrayed as Christ.

This gets us to the second great problem. The image is not only a violation of the second commandment but also a violation of the first commandment. God’s holy law says: “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod 20:3). To depict the President as Christ is to conflate the President and God, and that is idolatry. About idolatry the Reformed churches confess:

94. What does God require in the first Commandment?

That on peril of my soul’s salvation, I avoid and flee all idolatry, sorcery, enchantments, invocation of saints or of other creatures; and that I rightly acknowledge the only true God, trust in him alone, with all humility and patience expect all good from him only, and love, fear and honor him with my whole heart; so as rather to renounce all creatures than to do the least thing against his will.

95. What is idolatry?

Idolatry is to conceive or have something else on which to place our trust instead of, or besides the one true God who has revealed himself in his Word.

However great a supporter of the President one might be, it is a sin to conflate him with God the Son incarnate.7

One might object that the President was merely provoking his critics, “owning them,” as they say on social media. That seems likely but his intent is no excuse. One might also object that the image was merely in bad taste and that this controversy is much ado about nothing. This response seems almost desperate. Trump Derangement Syndrome is real and much of the criticism directed at him seems driven more by personal animus against him than by partisan politics. But supporters of the President must be able to recognize when he has crossed a moral and spiritual line and this is one of those times.

Christians know that no governor is without sin. Only Jesus is the sinless King (Heb 4:15). We also know that we are to honor the magistrate (1 Pet 2:17). Sometimes the President’s critics, in their attempt to discredit him, seem to forget the office that he holds, but Christians honor those offices the Lord has placed over us (Rom 13:1–5). This is our duty under the fifth commandment. When Peter instructed the Christians of Asia Minor (Central and Western Turkey), he was instructing them to honor the office whose occupants were pagan and often vicious toward Christians. That fact did not keep him from affirming the fifth commandment. The primary author of our Belgic Confession, Guy de Bres, was so committed to honoring the office of the magistrate that he preferred to die as a martyr for the gospel in Antwerp in 1567 rather than to resist the magistrate and possibly save his own life.

Honoring the offices of those whom God has placed over us, however, does not mean that we sacrifice our ultimate loyalty. It is possible for Christians to become so captured by the political contests of the moment, so caught up in the culture war to save America that we lose perspective. Let me try to offer some perspective. Every election since 1980 has been characterized as “the most important election in our time.” They are important and it is reasonable to think that two of the last three federal administrations have shown hostility to conservative Christians. But if the defense of the President requires one to justify idolatry has one not, as they say, lost the plot? It is possible to become what one opposes.

Many Germans, Britons, and Americans were justifiably afraid of Communism in the early part of the twentieth century. Some were so afraid that, in their reaction, they became Fascists. One Reformed publication, which shall remain nameless, even published editorials before the war lauding Hitler. In the end, the Fascists became what they hated.

Christians may not do that. It is fine to love one’s country and to want to defend it, but our ultimate loyalty may never be to any earthly city. It must be to the “city that has foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Heb 11:10).8 After all, did not Paul remind the Philippians, who were proud of their Roman citizenship, that our “citizenship is in heaven” (Phil 3:20)? Our ultimate loyalty must always be to our Redeemer, who shed his blood for us (Matt 26:28). As citizens of the heavenly city we say with the Psalmist, “I lift up my eyes to the hills. From where does my help come? My help comes from the LORD, who made heaven and earth” (Psalms 121:1-2).

notes

  1. How Donald Trump Described His Religious Identity Over Time.
  2. Hippolytus of Rome, The Refutation of All Heresies, 7.20 in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. J. H. MacMahon, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 114.
  3. Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 2.19, in Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily, and Liturgies, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. William Fletcher, vol. 7, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Christian Literature Company, 1886), 67–68.
  4. Epiphanius of Salamis, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, 2 vols. Nag Hammadi Studies vols 35–36. trans. Frank Williams (E. J. Brill, 1987), 27, 6, 9–10 (1.105). For more on this see the Resources on Images of Christ.
  5. R. Scott Clark, The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological & Pastoral Commentary (Lexham Academic, 2025), 694–95.
  6. The Heidelberg Catechism, 685.
  7. Clark, Heidelberg Catechism, 665–77.
  8. My translation.

©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.

RESOURCES

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

    Post authored by:

  • R. Scott Clark
    Author Image

    R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.

    More by R. Scott Clark ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments are welcome but must observe the moral law (Matt 22:37–40). Comments that are profane, that deny the moral law, that deny the gospel, that advance positions contrary to the Reformed confession, or that irritate the management are subject to deletion. Please use a working email address so we can contact you, if necessary, about content or corrections.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.