# The Chosen (TV Show)



## B. F. Anderson (Dec 17, 2021)

Is the show The Chosen a violation of the 2nd Commandment?


----------



## Taylor (Dec 17, 2021)

Yes. Stay far away from it. Any depiction of Christ—for whatever reason whatsoever—is rank idolatry.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Dec 17, 2021)

It's also a show made by Mormons, so I would argue that is an even bigger problem as they don't actually believe in a Biblical Jesus.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## D.L. Arter (Dec 17, 2021)

retroGRAD3 said:


> It's also a show made by Mormons, so I would argue that is an even bigger problem as they don't actually believe in a Biblical Jesus.


I had heard that they were utilizing sets that were made by the Mormon church, but I didn't think the people making the series were Mormons--do you have an article or anything that says this? If it's true, then I'm completely on board with your assessment.


----------



## B. F. Anderson (Dec 17, 2021)

retroGRAD3 said:


> It's also a show made by Mormons, so I would argue that is an even bigger problem as they don't actually believe in a Biblical Jesus.


Yea that's not completely accurate the actual creator went to Harvest Bible Chapel, which has it's own issues, but it's definitely not Mormon.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 17, 2021)

The writer is not Mormon, although the executive producer is.

See this quote:


> Dallas Jenkins is not Mormon but he is an evangelical Christian who is working with Mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) to create The Chosen. Lots of people think Dallas Jenkins is Mormon but that is part of the miracle of the Chosen TV Series. To have Evangelical Christians and Mormons working together on the most popular show about Jesus Christ is truly a miracle.











Who is Dallas Jenkins, creator, director and co-writer of "The Chosen"?


Dallas Jenkins is the innovative creative behind the record-breaking, faith-based TV show, "The Chosen." Find out about this incredible new project.




blog.lemonadestand.org

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew35 (Dec 17, 2021)

Speaking of Mormon art, why does it always have that... look?

You know what I mean. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending RCC or EO or Lutheran or even--heaven forbid--evangelical kitsch art.

But Mormon art always looks off, somehow. In a creepy way. Like Stepford-wives off, or something.

Please tell me I'm not the only one who's noticed this.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Dec 17, 2021)

The show is made in partnership with Mormans, that is problematic enough, what does light have to do with darkness? Mormans worship demons. Would you have a problem if the show was made with Satanists? If yes, why is your standard different for Mormans, they both worship Satan in the end. Also, the creator of the show also says he believes Mormans are Christians. Literally states: "*“We love the same Jesus…I’ll sink or swim on that statement.”* 

Here are is an article: https://fitl.co.za/2021/05/19/the-chosen-the-shift/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 17, 2021)

For any who voted that the chosen series doesn't violate the 2nd commandment, what confession of faith do you subscribe to?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Andrew35 (Dec 17, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> For any who voted that the chosen series doesn't violate the 2nd commandment, what confession of faith do you subscribe to?


Just one vote? 

Could be statistical noise.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 17, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> Just one vote?
> 
> Could be statistical noise.


No, it was a vote.


----------



## Edward (Dec 17, 2021)

I don't watch much TV other than college football or an occaisional 'fix-up' show or an old movie. So I'll sit this poll out.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Dec 17, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> For any who voted that the chosen series doesn't violate the 2nd commandment, what confession of faith do you subscribe to?


While the 2nd commandment as defined in the Westminster catechisms unapologetically defines as forbidden in the 2nd commandment "the 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" which I cannot see how could be construed to make the show not violate the 2nd commandment, I think the London Baptist Confession of Faith does not address this directly at all.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 17, 2021)

Jake said:


> While the 2nd commandment as defined in the Westminster catechisms unapologetically defines as forbidden in the 2nd commandment "the 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" which I cannot see how could be construed to make the show not violate the 2nd commandment, I think the London Baptist Confession of Faith does not address this directly at all.


Why do you say so, Jake? The wording in the LBCF: "But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, _under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures"_ (Chapter 22:1) seems to prohibit any images of God. https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2012/07/images-and-pictures-of-Jesus-Christ.html

(I can't get this link to work but if you Google it it comes up. I'm sure reformed Baptist members on the board could supply more resources to clarify and enlighten.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Dec 17, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Why do you say so, Jake? The wording in the LBCF: "But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, _under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures"_ (Chapter 22:1) seems to prohibit any images of God. https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2012/07/images-and-pictures-of-Jesus-Christ.html


I can't get your link to work for some reason, but some make a distinction between creating an image and worshipping an image, and would say only the latter is forbidden in the 2nd commandment. It seems that the LBCF is primarily concerned with worshipping of images not creating them in that section. 

I'm not sure if you can say the LBCF or WCF without the Catechism allows this view (especially since the WCF was written in connection with the WLC and WSC), but many in church history have taken the view of images of God not being for worship but acceptable for educational and similar purposes. (e.g., Council of Frankfurt 794 and the RPCES in 1981, a denomination which shortly thereafter merged with the PCA). 

For the record I heartily agree with the Westminster Catechisms and their interpretation of the 2nd commandment.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 17, 2021)

Jake said:


> I can't get your link to work for some reason, but some make a distinction between creating an image and worshipping an image, and would say only the latter is forbidden in the 2nd commandment. It seems that the LBCF is primarily concerned with worshipping of images not creating them in that section.
> 
> I'm not sure if you can say the LBCF or WCF without the Catechism allows this view (especially since the WCF was written in connection with the WLC and WSC), but many in church history have taken the view of images of God not being for worship but acceptable for educational and similar purposes. (e.g., Council of Frankfurt 794 and the RPCES in 1981, a denomination which shortly thereafter merged with the PCA).
> 
> For the record I heartily agree with the Westminster Catechisms and their interpretation of the 2nd commandment.


I see what you're saying. I would think the intent would have been to forbid any visual representation at the time the LBCF was written but alas, not enough clarity of language. I wonder if any Baptists of the day wrote more explicitly on the topic.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 17, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> Speaking of Mormon art, why does it always have that... look?
> 
> You know what I mean.
> 
> ...



Kind of like "American Gothic meets Church."

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Catechised in Heidelberg (Dec 17, 2021)

Some friends of mine like this show because they claim that many people around the world got saved already through "The Chosen". Very unlikely, I think. Highly doubt it!


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 17, 2021)

The acceptance of this show has really disturbed me. I just don't get it.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 17, 2021)

Here's an extensive review I did of the show on PB.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## FivePointSpurgeonist (Dec 18, 2021)

I very much do not want to watch this and I will not, but I am not yet convinced it would definitely be a sin to do so.

I used to be ok with images of Christ, now I am more uncomfortable with them and prefer to avoid them, but haven't come to a position biblically yet.

I seriously dislike having a "picture" of Christ on a wall, although for a children's book I don't see too much of an issue, yet I still feel like I prefer to avoid it. That’s why I voted no.


----------



## JH (Dec 18, 2021)

Nathan, there is already an active thread on the very topic, not only so, but a plethora of threads already exist. There's no need to create a new one (let alone the recent one) to rehash the same arguments ad nauseam.


----------



## FivePointSpurgeonist (Dec 18, 2021)

Jerrod Hess said:


> Nathan, there is already an active thread on the very topic, not only so, but a plethora of threads already exist. There's no need to create a new one (let alone the recent one) to rehash the same arguments ad nauseam.


I’m confused, I’m not OP?


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Dec 18, 2021)

Spurgeonite said:


> I’m confused, I’m not OP?


I believe he was just trying to say that there are many threads already discussing the 2nd commandment on PB. I believe it was an encouragement to search for those because they will go in to much more depth.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 18, 2021)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I believe he was just trying to say that there are many threads already discussing the 2nd commandment on PB. I believe it was an encouragement to search for those because they will go in to much more depth.


Jerrod may have gotten threads confused, it's very easy to do so! Nathan's post is an exact fit for this current thread.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Timotheus (Dec 18, 2021)

My wife and I were discussing this last night. If a church put on a play where people acted out a Biblical account, would that be making a graven image? Now if it was photographed or videoed (say your children were acting in it), would that be making a graven image? We could go as far as the Amish and reject all photography. Even photographing an eagle taking flight could be considered making a graven image of what is above the earth. If a man takes a photo of the fish he caught, that could be a graven image of what is under the earth. Now, the problem I see with The Chosen is the extra-Biblical content added. I draw the line there for sure!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Timotheus (Dec 18, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> For any who voted that the chosen series doesn't violate the 2nd commandment, what confession of faith do you subscribe to?


LBCF


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 18, 2021)

Timotheus said:


> Now, the problem I see with The Chosen is the extra-Biblical content added.


Yeah that's a problem.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## D.L. Arter (Dec 18, 2021)

I happened to be on YouTube yesterday and stumbled on an interview posted by The Chosen answering questions, which honestly, pushed me further against the show. In light of the conversation here, I thought it might be worth sharing for those that might be curious:


----------



## Timotheus (Dec 18, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> For any who voted that the chosen series doesn't violate the 2nd commandment, what confession of faith do you subscribe to?


I subscribe to Exodus 20:4 first and foremost as the Word of God says: "Thou shalt make thee no *graven* *image*, neither any similitude _of things_ that are in heaven above, neither that are in the earth beneath, nor that are in the waters under the earth." See my explanation in this thread.


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 18, 2021)

Timotheus said:


> If a church put on a play where people acted out a Biblical account, would that be making a graven image? Now if it was photographed or videoed (say your children were acting in it), would that be making a graven image?


If Christ, or any member of the Godhead, is being depicted by an image, then yes it would be a 2CV and/or a 3cv directly.







Timotheus said:


> Even photographing an eagle taking flight could be considered making a graven image of what is above the earth. If a man takes a photo of the fish he caught, that could be a graven image of what is under the earth.


This would not be a 2CV according to the puritan and reformed understanding, unless of course one is worshipping such earthly images of creatures such as an eagle. For Godhead images, regardless if one is “worshipping” them or not, they are violations of the moral law (again see video linked).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Catechised in Heidelberg (Dec 18, 2021)

> Timotheus said:
> 
> 
> > My wife and I were discussing this last night. If a church put on a play where people acted out a Biblical account, would that be making a graven image? Now if it was photographed or videoed (say your children were acting in it), would that be making a graven image? We could go as far as the Amish and reject all photography. Even photographing an eagle taking flight could be considered making a graven image of what is above the earth. If a man takes a photo of the fish he caught, that could be a graven image of what is under the earth. Now, the problem I see with The Chosen is the extra-Biblical content added. I draw the line there for sure!
> ...


----------



## Timotheus (Dec 18, 2021)

Thank you brethren who lovingly set me straight. It makes sense then, if even a children's play were performed that no one should portray our LORD. Right? I'm open to correction if I am mistaken. So then, would a children's Bible story picture book be in violation of the 2nd commandment? Thanks for any loving correction if I am mistaken.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ReformedCuban (Dec 19, 2021)

Timotheus said:


> It makes sense then, if even a children's play were performed that no one should portray our LORD. Right?



Correct.



Timotheus said:


> So then, would a children's Bible story picture book be in violation of the 2nd commandment?



Not necessarily, unless it contains an image of all or of any of the three divine Persons.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Catechised in Heidelberg (Dec 19, 2021)

Timotheus said:


> Thank you brethren who lovingly set me straight. It makes sense then, if even a children's play were performed that no one should portray our LORD. Right? I'm open to correction if I am mistaken. So then, would a children's Bible story picture book be in violation of the 2nd commandment? Thanks for any loving correction if I am mistaken.


Unfortunately, there are not that many good children's Bibles without a portrayl of our Lord  at least not here in Germany. How is the situation over there?


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 19, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> Speaking of Mormon art, why does it always have that... look?
> 
> You know what I mean.
> 
> ...


Very true. For some reason the LDS president/apostle's Christmas message came up in my Facebook feed. Very spooky. His eyes are like those paintings in Scooby Doo with the eyes that follow you across the room.


----------



## jw (Dec 20, 2021)

It's of the evil one, the father of lies.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Dec 21, 2021)

DamienEdwards1689 said:


> Unfortunately, there are not that many good children's Bibles without a portrayl of our Lord  at least not here in Germany. How is the situation over there?


The newest version of vos children's bible from banner does not have images of God in it.









The Child’s Story Bible


<p>ENDORSEMENTSRead More ↓ ‘Time and again over the years The Child’s Story Bible provided the timeline for our family worship. The flow of biblical history outlined by Catherine Vos with the biblical narrative gave our children an understanding of the history of God’s redemptive purposes. The...




banneroftruth.org

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JH (Dec 21, 2021)

retroGRAD3 said:


> The newest version of vos children's bible from banner does not have images of God in it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Amen. I need to pick this up


----------



## Faythe (Dec 22, 2021)

This discussion is why I haven't watched The Chosen or any thing else that tries to depict the likeness of Jesus. In fact, I wanted a nativity scene for inside my home. I have considered the faceless ones but I haven't felt even comfortable with that.

Edit: Updated to reflect lessons learned today.


----------



## Wonderkins (Dec 22, 2021)

My pastor just endorsed this show last Sunday during his sermon. He let us know how funny Matthew's character is and that the show is a blast. I was a bit surprised and annoyed. 

Even aside from the depiction of Jesus, as if that weren't enough for me, the dialog in the Bible isn't enough to make an "entertaining" show that people would want to watch on screen. The producers would always be forced to add to the Bible to make it watchable to the world. I imagine that's how you get a funny Matthew, or Satan holding a demon baby in the Passion. 

It's the same reason I couldn't bring myself to watch Noah, or the Moses movie that depicts him screaming at God in the lightning.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Wow 1


----------



## SeamusDelion (Dec 29, 2021)

Timotheus said:


> Thank you brethren who lovingly set me straight. It makes sense then, if even a children's play were performed that no one should portray our LORD. Right? I'm open to correction if I am mistaken. So then, would a children's Bible story picture book be in violation of the 2nd commandment? Thanks for any loving correction if I am mistaken.


Just watching the sit down of theologians who tell about the story after each episode is evidence alone of how evil this show is. _I would never take any advice from a catholic "ordained priest" even if he told me not to cross the tracks because a train was coming. Let them be accursed (Galatians 1) 

I watched the first episode and couldn't do it after that. I wanted to slap my TV.


----------



## SeamusDelion (Dec 29, 2021)

Timotheus said:


> My wife and I were discussing this last night. If a church put on a play where people acted out a Biblical account, would that be making a graven image? Now if it was photographed or videoed (say your children were acting in it), would that be making a graven image? We could go as far as the Amish and reject all photography. Even photographing an eagle taking flight could be considered making a graven image of what is above the earth. If a man takes a photo of the fish he caught, that could be a graven image of what is under the earth. Now, the problem I see with The Chosen is the extra-Biblical content added. I draw the line there for sure!



I believe what you are doing is taking this out of context here,




פֶּ֫סֶל (psl), N. divine image; idol. Greek equiv. fr. LXX: γλυπτός (21).

Noun Usage

1. idol — a pagan and material effigy that is worshiped as a representation or in lieu of a deity. See also צִיר 4, צֶ֫לֶם 1. Related Topics: Graven Image; Idolatry; Canaanite Religion. Related Entities: Graven image; Idol.

Do you worship the eagle you took an image of?

Lets look at what the Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible says: Some sort of physical representation of a deity.

Now this article is very long and ill post it for the context, but I do believe here that as long as there is nothing to do with God the Father, Son or Spirt then you are ok, and anything else is just being legalistic, but If you are worshipping that picture of the eagle then there is a violation of the commandment here. In romans Chapter 1:25 Paul says because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

We see that they worshiped and served the creature, rather then the Creator. Big difference from talking pictures.


Full article:



*"IDOL, IDOLATRY*
Some sort of physical representation of a deity. “Idol” is used to translate a number of words in the OT, most commonly Heb. ʾĕlɩ̂lɩ̂m, gillûlɩ̂m, ʿăṣabbɩ̂m (and its one-time variant ʿōṣeḇ), pesel and the related pĕsɩ̂lɩ̂m. It also can be used to translate Heb. semel (otherwise rendered as “image” or “figure”), massēḵâ and the less common neseḵ (otherwise rendered as “molten” or “cast image”), tĕrāp̱ɩ̂m (otherwise transliterated as “teraphim” or translated as “household gods”), šiqquṣ (otherwise translated as “detestable thing” or “abomination”), ʾāwen (otherwise a more abstract noun meaning “idolatry” or more generally “wickedness”), and heḇel (also a more abstract noun meaning that which is evanescent or unsubstantial). In the NT “idol” translates Gk. eɩ́dōlon. These terms differ somewhat in their specifics: e.g., semel refers generally to some sort of statue or free-standing image (2 Chr. 33:7, 15; Deut. 4:16); pesel/pĕsɩ̂lɩ̂m also refer to a free-standing statue carved from wood or stone (Deut. 7:5; Isa. 44:15, 17; 45:20) or cast of metal (Judg. 17:3, 4; Hab. 2:18; 2 Chr. 34:7); gillûlɩ̂m likewise can refer to a wood, stone, or metal statue (e.g., Deut. 29:17), but when the material used to make ʿăṣabbɩ̂m is identified, it is always metal (Hos. 8:4; 13:2; Ps. 115:4). Some terms for “idol” have implicit within them a value judgment: to speak of ʾĕlɩ̂lɩ̂m, a term which comes from a root meaning “weak” or “insignificant,” is to offer a negative opinion about the worthlessness of idols; the more general meanings of “wickedness” for ʾāwen and “unsubstantial” for heḇel also indicate that a pejorative judgment is being made when these terms mean “idol.” Gk. eɩ́dōlon, which means both “image” and “phantom,” conveys a pejorative sense as well.
The reason idols are so negatively judged in the Bible is that they represent the religions of the nations, from which both the Israel of the OT and the nascent Christianity of the NT are commanded to separate themselves. In the OT, the book of Deuteronomy lists the making of idols as one of the abominations of the nations whom the Hebrews are to supplant in the land of Israel (Deut. 7:5, 25; 12:3; 29:17 [MT 16]), and this sentiment is also expressed in the historical books stemming from the Deuteronomistic school. In 1 Sam. 31:9; 1 Kgs. 21:26; 2 Kgs. 17:15, e.g., idols are described as a despised component of the religions of, respectively, the Philistines, Amorites, and the nations in general. The prophetic books further depict idol worship as a foreign abhorrence: in Isaiah idols are associated with the religion of the Egyptians (Isa. 19:1, 3) and the Babylonians (46:1), and in Jeremiah idols are likewise associated with Babylon (Jer. 50:2, 38; 51:52) and more generally with foreigners (8:19; 14:22). The same sentiment is found in the Psalms (Ps. 96:5; 106:38; 135:15) and in the NT, particularly in Acts (17:16) and the letters of Paul (1 Cor. 8).
While elsewhere in their condemnations of their neighbors the biblical writers can be guilty of polemic and hyperbole, in the case of idol worship the Bible’s portrait seems fairly accurate. Both archaeological and textual evidence from throughout the West Semitic and eastern Mediterranean worlds indicate that the use of images to represent the deity was the norm in West Asian religious traditions. These images were most typically in the form of statues, although carved reliefs and wall paintings are attested. Statues, often life-sized, stood in temples and other sacred spaces, were the recipients of sacrifice and libations, and received votive offerings and prayers. They were also clothed and could be bathed. In certain ways, then, they were imagined as “alive,” to the degree at least that the god was perceived to be somehow present or manifest within the image and to share its fortunes or, on occasion, misfortunes (e.g., when the cult statue of the Philistine god Dagon falls and loses both head and hands before Israel’s ark of the covenant, it is as if Dagon has himself been defeated by the power of the Israelite God; 1 Sam. 5:1–5).
With respect to the biblical insistence on the lack of idols in Israel, assessing the accuracy of the biblical record, especially that of the OT, is a more complicated task. The OT’s legal tradition is emphatic that the Israelites should employ no idols in the worship of their God. The most famous text rejecting Israelite idolatry is the Second Commandment: “You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Exod. 20:4; cf. 34:17; Lev. 19:4; 26:1; Deut. 5:8–10). Yet the narrative traditions, especially those that describe Israel’s early history, are rife with accounts that involve the presence of idols, both idols of other gods and, it seems, of the God of Israel, and in these accounts, no negative judgment is rendered. Indeed, a positive judgment is often implied. Rachel’s theft of her father Laban’s household gods or teraphim is viewed as a good thing, as it helps her husband Jacob part from his father-in-law with the property that was rightfully his (Gen. 31:19–55 [MT 32:1]). King Saul’s daughter Michal is also seen as doing a good thing when she places a teraphim in her bed as a replacement for her husband David, thus helping David escape from the murderous rage of his father-in-law (the teraphim used here is presumably a full-sized figure rather than the more miniature statues Rachel stole). In Judges Micah has a shrine in which there are an ephod and a teraphim and over which a Levite, a member of Israel’s priestly tribe, presides; the text invokes no note of censure (Judg. 17:5, 7–13). This man Micah has previously been expiated from stealing 1100 pieces of silver from his mother by the mother’s giving of two hundred of the coins “to make an image of cast metal” (Judg. 17:1–4), and this also seems to be a laudable action from the text’s point of view. Moreover, since the mother consecrated her silver “to the Lord,” the implication is that the image she had cast is of the Israelite God.
Even the text that is often considered to describe the most heinous episode of idol worship in the OT, Aaron’s making of the golden calf (Exod. 32), is ultimately ambivalent in its sense of what constitutes the proper and improper use of images in Israel. Note that after casting the calf Aaron declares that the next day will be a cult holiday for the Lord (Exod. 32:5), suggesting that he sees the calf as an icon appropriate to Israel’s worship of its God. Since Aaron is never punished for making the calf, and, indeed, since he is elsewhere lauded as the ancestor of the priesthood of the Jerusalem temple, the impression is that many others in biblical tradition shared Aaron’s judgment that the calf was an acceptable icon in the cult. Certainly Jeroboam, the first king of Israel’s northern kingdom, seems to have seen the icon as appropriate, as he installed two images of bulls in the cult centers at Bethel and Dan to represent the presence of God there (1 Kgs. 12:25–33).
Archaeologists have posited that a small bronze statue of a bull found at a 12th-century site in the northern Samaritan hills represents an early Israelite icon of God as a bull or, possibly, represents an icon of a bull throne on which the Israelite God is to be imagined as sitting invisibly. This latter interpretation thus understands the bull as an object parallel to the ark of the covenant, which is often described as the footstool of a throne on which God invisibly sits (cf. 1 Chr. 28:2). But while understanding the Samaritan bull as the throne of God rather than an actual image of the divine mitigates somewhat its “idolatrous” nature, there still must be explained a small bronze of a seated figure that comes from 11th-century Hazor. Although this statue bears a striking resemblance to Canaanite representations of the god El, by the 11th century Hazor was a major city of the Israelite north, and so the figurine is most plausibly understood as a representation of Israel’s God. Certainly, it is clear from other evidence that in Israelite religion God takes over many of El’s attributes. If, moreover, the Israelite God takes over El’s consort, the goddess Asherah, as many scholars now suggest, then the many images the Bible describes as being erected in honor of this goddess might also be seen as a legitimate part of Israelite religion, despite once more the legal traditions that condemn Israel’s use of idols.
Whatever ambivalences we find regarding idols in these earlier Israelite materials, by the end of the Babylonian Exile ca. 539 those who worship idols suffer wholesale condemnation. The 6th-century part of Isaiah, e.g., contains several noteworthy texts presenting the worship of idols as futile and even absurd (Isa. 41:21–29; 44:9–20; 45:20–25; 46:1–13). This sentiment carries through into the NT period, where idolatry has so disappeared that it goes completely unmentioned in the Gospels. The issue of the worship of idols only surfaces as early Christians move into the gentile world and confront the use of images in Greek and Roman tradition. The most significant text in this regard is 1 Cor. 8, where Paul discusses whether Christians can eat meat sacrificed to the idols of Greek and Roman gods. At one level, Paul’s answer is yes, as he has inherited from his Jewish past an understanding that idols are meaningless images and thus an understanding that the meat sacrificed to them is no different than any other. Yet because Paul wishes to give his followers a clear impression of the distinctiveness of their faith, he advises against eating the meat since some who witnessed Christians doing so might conclude that Christianity was, in fact, just like the gentile religions it sought to replace.

*Bibliography. S. Ackerman*, Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah. HSM 46 (Atlanta, 1992); W. G. Dever, “Archaeology Reconstructs the Lost Background of the Israelite Cult,” in Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research (Seattle, 1990), 119–66; “The Contribution of Archaeology to the Study of Canaanite and Early Israelite Religion,” in Ancient Israelite Religion, ed. P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride (Philadelphia, 1987), 209–47; J. Faur, “The Biblical Idea of Idolatry,” JQR 69 (1978): 1–15; J. Gutmann, “The ‘Second Commandment’ and the Image in Judaism,” HUCA 32 (1961): 161–74; J. S. Holladay, “Religion in Israel and Judah Under the Monarchy,” in Ancient Israelite Religion, 249–99; S. M. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel. SBLMS 34 (Atlanta, 1988); W. L. Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth. SBLDS 68 (Chico, 1985).
_*SUSAN ACKERMAN"*_


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 31, 2021)

This following is a re-post of a review I had done on the first series (in 2020) after being shown it while visiting out-of-town friends. (See it in The Coffee Shop here on PB, May 2021 - I can't link to it)
_______

*Thoughts on film series, The Chosen*

1. _Personal Experience_

I was introduced to _The Chosen_ (TC) recently. I watched the whole series of the first season’s eight films, plus the Xmas special. I was intrigued as it is a very powerful presentation, and deeply moving emotionally in places — particularly when “Jesus” interacts with certain individuals, and yet on the face of it is clearly in violation of Scripture. I wondered about those emotionally moving parts which touched me deeply on occasion. I think it was from a sort of inadvertent “willing suspension of disbelief” <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief> mixed with a familiar Character (who has my heart in His heart), my own vital faith, and a plausible and winsome actor in that role.

And, as I see it, all the more dangerous for its being so well done. Yes, TC does bring to our minds the truth that there is much more to the humanity and the relationships of Jesus than we see in the Scriptures, and so we give these scenes credence, and take them in as though, at least, _possible_, and for some folks, as good as real. Admittedly, Jonathan Roumie is a very good actor (his background is Roman Catholic). The danger is the _diminishing_ of the glory of God, and of His Christ, as I examine below.

There are things we shall not know about Jesus and His relationships until we see Him in glory, and we must be satisfied with not knowing, satisfied with what the Scriptures reveal. What we should indeed strive to know is a deeper apprehension of His presence, by means of the word of God and the Holy Spirit revealing Him to us. Such is one of my burdens for the church, as in the piece linked to below, “God’s Presence Our Portion”.

Those who come from involvement in the Charismatic community may be especially open to this, being vulnerable to emotion and feeling displacing spiritual reality. As Jesus said, *“It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” *(John 6:63)*; “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” *(John 3:6). The flesh produces that which is delusional, especially in the realm of that which is supposedly spiritual. The films are almost addictive in their power – I am quite aware of their power, even over my own heart! I do not think I will be following the series next year – they are dangerous to my spirit. After watching the first season (in two sittings), my mind is polluted with fictitious and fleshly / worldly images – recently in the case of Nicodemus, as I’m reading in John 3 presently.* When Scripture is silent, we should be silent.

* (The Lord will enable me to remove the pollution and power of the images. They are lies, which intrude on and corrupt the actual truths of the divine record.)


2. _Biblical Scrutiny_

“Certainly,” remarks Calvin (_A Harmony of the Gospels_, Mt. 26:37), “those who imagine that the Son of God was exempt from human passions [feelings], do not truly and seriously acknowledge him to be a man.” At the same time we know that the Lord Jesus had two distinct natures in His Person, the divine – His full deity as God the eternal Son – and the human, fully taking on human nature as a true man in the womb of His mother, Mary.

We also know that not all the “feelings” Jesus had were restricted to His human nature, as His Father “so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son” (John 3:16) for the redemption of humankind through His sacrifice, and Jesus’ heart was one with His Father’s in this loving mission of redeeming the human race. Jesus loved and cherished those elected of God even before He took on our nature (Eph 1:4; Rev 13:8). Yet Jesus also loved men and women with the human emotions He had as a man. A good study of this matter is the classic essay by Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Emotional Life of Our Lord” (https://bit.ly/3o9RuOD).

In the film series, _The Chosen_, Jesus is winsomely portrayed as, at times, “a regular guy”, winking, joking, and laughing with His friends, among them His disciples who were to become the apostles we read of in the Scriptures. This depiction of His character is not warranted by the word of God, by which only we know anything of Jesus.

This is not to say He had no sense of humor, a human quality, yet it is not shown in the record of His life, so we may not attribute it to Him through fictional instances conjured by _mere_ human imagination. What we are shown in _The Chosen_ is mere human humor and is the forbidden, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you” (Deut 4:2). In a number of places we are commanded neither to add nor to diminish even a word from what God has spoken to us in the Bible (Prov 30:6; Jer 26:2; Rev 22:18, 19) – the Bible alone is the word of God.

We should also remember, the controlling “I” in the Person of Jesus Christ – although He possessed a human nature – was that of God the eternal Son. His human nature never had its own separate personality.

But in _The Chosen_ are numerous instances of the Bible, and the Gospel, being added to, through made-up conversations and activities of Jesus and other Biblical persons, coming merely from 21st century fiction writers. So what we see and hear are *falsehoods*. Well-meant, no doubt, but untrue, and dangerously perverting – _distorting_ – the Biblical picture of our Lord. Presuming to put words in the Lord’s mouth – whether in a film or a book – is the sin of adding to the record of His words.

Even more serious, if such can be, are the portrayals of Jesus. In Scripture – and in reality, for the Bible alone shows what is real as regards God, and His Christ – we do not see Jesus joking around as the film shows. Yes, He had emotions, but not as the actor displays. For the consciousness of Jesus Christ had as its foundation, _its base_, these desires, _attitudes_, of His deity:

“For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8).

All His life, especially after His 40 days in the wilderness fasting in preparation for His ministry, He was about binding the devil and destroying his works, namely the oppression of men and women through illness, demonic possession, and sin, and setting men free from the power of darkness and translating them into the kingdom of God. Every leper or blind healed, every demon cast out, every sinner converted, were mighty blows against the demonic realm, and the tearing down of its kingdom. This was always in His consciousness.

He was always alert to the presence of both His enemies among men, and those who were His, given Him by the Father:

“But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:26, 27)

Even though He was a Man of sorrows (Isa 53:3), empathizing with our suffering, yet on a deeper level he was a Man of joy, for “thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows” (Heb 1:9)

“Joy he had: but it was not the shallow joy of mere pagan delight in living . . . but the deep exultation of a conqueror setting captives free.” (Warfield, “The Emotional Life…”. _The Person and Work of Christ_, p 126)

[Christ] “is the Man of Sorrows, yet we cannot think of him for a moment as an unhappy man. He rather gives us the picture of serene and unclouded happiness. Beneath not merely the outward suffering, but the profound sorrow of heart, there is deeper still a continual joy, derived from the realized presence of his Father and the consciousness that he is doing his work.” (Ibid., Cited in Warfield; F. W. Farrar, _The Life of Christ_, 1874, i. p. 318; ii. p. 103)

Jesus of Nazareth was a warrior King come from Heaven into the world ravaged by the demonic powers, to save sinners, the broken hearted, the hopeless, and to give them saving faith, hope, and love so as to become new creatures indwelt by the Holy Spirit and adopted into the royal family of the living God. He was always alert and conscious, both in His deity, and in His human nature, of where He was, who He was, and among whom He was. He was not severed in His human nature from the consciousness of His divine nature, to be joking around as a mere man – a “regular guy” – as the movie seeks to convey. He was the eternal God come to take on our nature so as to be a fit Mediator and High Priest before God for us, and then to bring us into union with Him, body and soul, to be partakers in Him of the glory of God.

There was an infinite dignity and majesty about Him, calm and filled with power to proclaim the Gospel of the kingdom with authority – the authority of the triune God – and devils trembled when they saw Him. Jesus may well have laughed when He was with children, or seeing the joy in a holy wedding, but we have no record of that, and we shall be satisfied to know He was fully man as well as God, and wait till we see Him face-to-face to learn more of His life, both while on earth and in glory. To depict Him behaving as the film does – in the likeness of a mere fallen, but nice, man – is to diminish His glory, the infinite majesty and gentleness of His Person.

What can never be conveyed in a film is, similar to many other encounters the Lord had with men and women, the incident at the pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-9) where Jesus said to the impotent man who couldn’t get down to the pool for healing, “Rise, take up thy bed, and walk” and as he looked into Jesus’ face (2 Cor 4:6; John 1:14) became aware of the divine glory and power of God flowing through Him and into his own being, giving him the energy and health to indeed miraculously rise, take up his bed, and walk, immediately being made whole, having been quickened by the presence and power of God.

Only in the word of God, being read, or heard, does the Spirit of God reveal to us the reality of God’s presence, His infinite majesty, power, and love, which mere human imagery can never convey, “because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14).
_______

I have not previously brought up the 2nd Commandment violation exhibited in the films – a depiction of God by means of an image (the actor playing Jesus Christ) to be worshipped – as many who will read this are not Reformed and won’t relate to this understanding of the commandment. Yet it is true, and I have sought to indicate this in the substance of my remarks above.
_______

Link to the paper, “God’s Presence Our Portion”, on my Google Drive: https://bit.ly/3fUNYEP

Reactions: Like 4


----------

