Movies about Jesus violate 2nd commandment?

Status
Not open for further replies.
shackleton

shackleton

Puritan Board Junior
I have been reading commentaries on the WCF and catechisms that pertain to the 2nd commandment. Now I am wondering if according the these documents, movies about Jesus and especially pictures, are a violation of the 2nd Commandment.

If they are, what should we do with movies like the Passion that seemed to do some good for evangelism?
What about bible tracts and Sunday School material?
What about any paintings that give an artists rendition of stories of the bible that pertain to Jesus?

One I read said that thinking about Jesus was a violation of the 2nd commandment.

Any thoughts?
 
shackleton said:
One I read said that thinking about Jesus was a violation of the 2nd commandment.
Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
I guess you mean one work said visualizing Jesus in our mind was wrong, which is correct. I can't imagine any Christian saying we can't think about Jesus, period. Visualizing Christ in our mind in some image as well as physical representations are unlawful per the second commandment as WLC 109 says:
Q109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment, are, all devising, (a) counselling, (b) commanding, (c) using (d) and anyways approving any religious worship not instituted by God himself; (e) tolerating a false religion; (f) 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, (g) all worshipping of it, (h) or God in it, or by it; (i) the making of any representation of feigned deities, (k) and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; (l) all superstitious devices, (m) corrupting the worship of God, (n) adding to it, taking from it, (o) whether invented and taken up of ourselves, (p) or received by tradition from others, (q) though under the title of antiquity, (r) custom, (s) devotion, (t) good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever; (u) simony, (w) sacrilege, (x) all neglect, (y) contempt, (z) hindering, (a) and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed. (b)


a NUM 15:39
b DEU 13:6-8
c HOS 5:11; MIC 6:16
d 1KI 12:33
e DEU 12:30-32
f DEU 13:6-12; ZEC 13:2-3; REV 2:2, 14-15, 20; REV 17:12, 16-17
g DEU 4:15-19; ACT 17:29; ROM 1:21-23, 25
h DAN 3:18; GAL 4:8
i EXO 32:5
k EXO 32:8
l 1KI 18:26, 28; ISA 65:11
m ACT 17:22; COL 2:21-23
n MAL 1:7-8, 14
o DEU 4:2
p PSA 106:39
q MAT 15:9
r 1PE 1:18
s JER 44:17
t ISA 65:3-5; GAL 1:13-14
u 1SA 13:11-12; 1SA 15:21
w ACT 8:18
x ROM 2:22; MAL 3:8
y EXO 4:24-26
z MAT 22:5; MAL 1:7, 13
a MAT 23:13
b ACT 13:44-45; 1TH 2:15-16
Click to expand...
 
I well remember when they first started to make 'biblical' movies. I was horrified that anyone, even in Hollywood would presume to make a movie about the bible or to ever consider an actor playing the part of Christ! Such travesty, blasphemy.
We have progressively become desensitized as the frog in the boiling pan of water! All such is so common place today and no one seems offended anymore.
 
Yep. Or as Thomas Vincent says:
It is not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ, because his divine nature cannot be pictured at all, and because his body, as it is now glorified, cannot be pictured as it is, and because, if it do not stir up devotion, it is in vain; if it do stir up devotion, it is a worshipping by an image or picture, and so a palpable breach of the second commandment. Exposition of the Westminster Assembly's Shorter Catechism.
Click to expand...
 
I've heard of the Texarkana Swamp Monster and the Texarkana Phantom Killer and even Texarkana Ross Perot. But low-down horse-thieving puritan-plagiarizing hicks, now that's a new one.
 
If images of Christ are a violation of the 2nd commandment then it is certainly sinful to visualize Him in our minds. We know this from His teachings on the Law in Matthew 5. Committing adultery with a woman in our heart would be likened to visualizing Christ in our mind.
 
I agree that it is a violation of the 2nd commandment. Movies and pictures and such are also all so catholic that I shudder... However, what a challenge it is after being inundated with constant "pictures" of Christ, not to picture Him at times... We should set our minds like flint not to, though.
 
One I read said that thinking about Jesus was a violation of the 2nd commandment.
Click to expand...

Meditating upon Christ is not a violation of the Second Commandment, but thinking on a self-imagined picture of the Lord is. Remember you cannot know if the "picture" of Christ is an accurate portrayl...and it probably is not.
 
shackleton said:
I have been reading commentaries on the WCF and catechisms that pertain to the 2nd commandment. Now I am wondering if according the these documents, movies about Jesus and especially pictures, are a violation of the 2nd Commandment.

If they are, what should we do with movies like the Passion that seemed to do some good for evangelism?
What about bible tracts and Sunday School material?
What about any paintings that give an artists rendition of stories of the bible that pertain to Jesus?

One I read said that thinking about Jesus was a violation of the 2nd commandment.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I recall when The Passion came out there were many congregations in the PCA that advertised it, and even sponsored group viewings for members and friends. I also recall that there were many pastors that denounced the film from the pulpit on 2nd commandment grounds. Talk about a confusing message. (I think in large measure the confusion has resulted from the "joining and receiving" of the RPCES into the PCA.)

In my congregation at the time I shared some of these "anti-" sermons with members and friends. I got a positive reaction from all the people who spoke with me about it. The only negative reaction I got was from the Session who said, 1) how dare you offer these opinions, and b) why didn’t you balance it with sermons from the other side. The Session didn’t take a position even though there was a lot of buzz within the congregation. I never did understand if they were offended because I would expose the congregation to a confessional/biblical argument why such movies are not a good idea, or if I jumped the gun and stirred things up. I received no negative feedback, except from certain Session members, some of whom I’m sure are in the "images of Jesus are OK as long as we don’t worship them" camp.
 
I'm going to try to put this succinctly, to say what has already been said, just different words.

Jesus "in the flesh" was a veiling of his divine glory. It was the blessing of the disciples and those others who saw the Lord THEN (as we will LATER) to take what they were given and to see through the veil and commune with GOD through the Lord. Don't miss this: Jesus came to "show us the Father," his incarnation was to reveal divinity. What do we think John means when he said "we beheld his GLORY"?

The utter, total failure of any and all pictures, images, etc. of Jesus is that they CANNOT do this critical thing: they cannot reveal GOD to us, to our minds. They merely show us how in some man's mind Jesus is like him! But that is the OPPOSITE of why Jesus came to earth, and took on flesh! He became like us SO THAT (purpose) we should be like him, as like him as creatures can be. And I can say that while in no way denying that he came to DIE in that flesh like we ought to have under the curse of judgment.

We will one day--when our own bodies are glorified, be ABLE to see him as he is, and will see him each one for himself. And we will, as the disciples did, be seeing him not do much for the manner in which we have become like him in glorified bodies, but how DIFFERENT he still is from us, even then. We will be penetrating with our now glorified eyes beyond to see so far as we are enabled to more of the glory of the Father.

This is how our Bible functions. It isn't filled with pictures of Jesus. What it presents to us of him, especially when we read the gospels, when they are preached to us (not exclusively of course) is Jesus. And as we read of him, we are not given the LIBERAL's Jesus, a great MAN, the BEST MAN EVER. NO! God is showing us HIS revelation, this is the DIVINE one! We are encountering GOD. In other words, in the Bible we are encountering that Divine One as well or BETTER than the disciples did! Dare I say that? Well, that is what Peter says! 2 Pet. 1:17-19.

It has always Always! ALWAYS!! been the essence of idolatry to bring God down to our level, to represent him as LIKE us in some way. Same with these movies. They are NOT (the Bible says they CAN'T, so I don't care what anybody else CLAIMS) lifting our minds up to the divine, and to the extent we act as though they are, we are worshipping according to idols.

"Little children, keep yourselves from idols." 1 John 5:21
 
How do we avoid a picture of Christ in our minds???? I don't really try to, at times when I read the Gospels....I can almost "picture" Christ talking to the Apostles. Like I say....it is not deliberate...it just happens. Am I alone here????:coffee: (I would like to add I am not advocating a mental image thing......I am just a bit curious if others have this happen.)
 
Last edited:
shackleton said:
I have been reading commentaries on the WCF and catechisms that pertain to the 2nd commandment. Now I am wondering if according the these documents, movies about Jesus and especially pictures, are a violation of the 2nd Commandment.

If they are, what should we do with movies like the Passion that seemed to do some good for evangelism?
Click to expand...

Some people become Christians after first being evangelized by the Mormons.

Should we encourage Mormon missions as a means of Christian evangelism? The end NEVER justifies the means...
 
Yes, how can we read the Gospels and not imagine the activities as happening?


If it says that Jesus wept, we have a picture of a weeping man. If we say that they plucked out Jesus' beard then we picture him with a beard. It is impossible not to picture a bearded man getting his beard plucked.




Also, a question about the PCA: They follow the WCF too, right? Their pastors must pledge to uphold it too, right? Do they interpret the 2nd commandment differently and is this permissible or should they all be defrocked who even so much as watch the Jesus film?



Ha, another observation: This assertion that the Jesus evangelistic film is idolatry puts watching it a worse evil than watching P_rn. That doesn't make sense.



As well, whenever we make a picture of ANYTHING we only picture its physical aspects. In photographs of me, my soul cannot be pictured, thus is this a travesty since a photo can never picture my spiritual self?



Also, why can we make graven images of animals and flowers and people but not God per the Decalogue. It says everything under heaven in heaven, etc? It seems to prohibit any representational art en toto.



Does not the Decalogue forbid graven images of anything for the sake of worship? I.e. we are not to bown before them? My parents have a yard gnome....is this idolatry?
 
This is not an answer, of which I think there is one that starts to but could be elaborated, but the material is not online any longer, except to say, many assume everyone thinks pictorially or necessarily does and that it is uncontrollable. I know two men who say they do not think pictorially. I know another minister who was convicted of this very thing regarding visualizing Christ and trained himself not to do that. I throw that out for what it is worth; anecdotal to be sure.

etexas said:
How do we avoid a picture of Christ in our minds???? I don't really try to, at times when I read the Gospels....I can almost "picture" Christ talking to the Apostles. Like I say....it is not deliberate...it just happens. Am I alone here????:coffee: (I would like to add I am not advocating a mental image thing......I am just a bit curious if others have this happen.)
Click to expand...

Pergamum said:
Yes, how can we read the Gospels and not imagine the activities as happening?


If it says that Jesus wept, we have a picture of a weeping man. If we say that they plucked out Jesus' beard then we picture him with a beard. It is impossible not to picture a bearded man getting his beard plucked.




Also, a question about the PCA: They follow the WCF too, right? Their pastors must pledge to uphold it too, right? Do they interpret the 2nd commandment differently and is this permissible or should they all be defrocked who even so much as watch the Jesus film?



Ha, another observation: This assertion that the Jesus evangelistic film is idolatry puts watching it a worse evil than watching P_rn. That doesn't make sense.



As well, whenever we make a picture of ANYTHING we only picture its physical aspects. In photographs of me, my soul cannot be pictured, thus is this a travesty since a photo can never picture my spiritual self?



Also, why can we make graven images of animals and flowers and people but not God per the Decalogue. It says everything under heaven in heaven, etc? It seems to prohibit any representational art en toto.



Does not the Decalogue forbid graven images of anything for the sake of worship? I.e. we are not to bown before them? My parents have a yard gnome....is this idolatry?
Click to expand...
 
etexas said:
How do we avoid a picture of Christ in our minds???? I don't really try to, at times when I read the Gospels....I can almost "picture" Christ talking to the Apostles. Like I say....it is not deliberate...it just happens. Am I alone here????:coffee: (I would like to add I am not advocating a mental image thing......I am just a bit curious if others have this happen.)
Click to expand...

We are given in the book of Revelation,a slight glimpse of what John saw:
13And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

14His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

15And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

16And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

17And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

18I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

We are given the Lord's supper to remember him by, but Peter spoke to the non eyewitness 's this,

8Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:

Unlike the false teachers of today who claim to see Him.
 
Hmm..everytime Peter remembered back to a visual memory of Jesus breaking the bread was he sinning? Our memories always change after all. And he IS making a visual representation of Christ (even if better informed than ours).
 
Pergamum said:
Hmm..everytime Peter remembered back to a visual memory of Jesus breaking the bread was he sinning? Our memories always change after all. And he IS making a visual representation of Christ (even if better informed than ours).
Click to expand...


No, because Peter would have been remembering what Christ actually looked like during His humiliation; we cannot however, do the same, as we have not actually seen Christ with our eyes, therefore, mental images of Him are our own inventions.
 
Ah, but we never remember exactly right and we recreate our memories. After 20 years we begin remembering an illusion and this illusion would therefore become an image not rooted to reality.


And what's with John in Revelation temptingus to sin? A man with white woolen hair and a girdle.... If mentally imagining this is sin, then why would the inspired holy writers tempt by evoking such imagery?
 
Pergamum said:
Ah, but we never remember exactly right and we recreate our memories. After 20 years we begin remembering an illusion and this illusion would therefore become an image not rooted to reality.


And what's with John in Revelation temptingus to sin? A man with white woolen hair and a girdle.... If mentally imagining this is sin, then why would the inspired holy writers tempt by evoking such imagery?
Click to expand...


So are you saying that our mental images are actually an accurate picture of Christ?
 
Moreover another question those advocating movies about Jesus have to answer is how can any man pretend to be the Lord Jesus Christ without violating the second commandment?

I am not saying that acting is wrong when you are pretending to be Napoleon or Cromwell etc, but for a sinful man to pretend to be the sinless Son of God is surely going too far.
 
 
Pergamum said:
Ah, but we never remember exactly right and we recreate our memories. After 20 years we begin remembering an illusion and this illusion would therefore become an image not rooted to reality.


And what's with John in Revelation temptingus to sin? A man with white woolen hair and a girdle.... If mentally imagining this is sin, then why would the inspired holy writers tempt by evoking such imagery?
Click to expand...

"You shall not make for yourself a 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 to them or serve them; for I The Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon 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 RSV)


Isnt this qualified by the phrase after the semi colon? If no punctuation was used, then I alwas thought we are not to bow down to anything..

Would these be considered graven images that God actually commanded to be made?

Exodus 25:16-20, 26:1, 31:

16 And you shall put into the ark the testimony which I shall give you. 17: Then you shall make a mercy seat of pure gold; two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. 18: And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. 19: Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. 20: The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be.

26:1 1: "Moreover you shall make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twined linen and blue and purple and scarlet stuff; with cherubim skillfully worked shall you make them….31: "And you shall make a veil of blue and purple and scarlet stuff and fine twined linen; in skilled work shall it be made, with cherubim;


Numbers 21:7-9:

7: And the people came to Moses, and said, "We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD and against you; pray to the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us." So Moses prayed for the people. 8: And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." , 9: So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.
 
I struggled with this issue years ago while I was still steeped in fundamentalism. One of the evangelistic tools our mission used was the "Jesus" film. It really bothered me. It seemed a bit confusing to violate one command while sharing the gospel.


Also, a question about the PCA: They follow the WCF too, right? Their pastors must pledge to uphold it too, right? Do they interpret the 2nd commandment differently and is this permissible or should they all be defrocked who even so much as watch the Jesus film?
Click to expand...

Having been in the PCA for some time, I can say that for some reason, this particular issue is up for grabs even within the same presbytery. Not only that, I've seen the same pastor promote the "Jesus" film and reject the "Passion".


When it comes to personal worship, I think we can all be guilty of idolatry from time to time. Even if we don't conjure up an image of God or Christ in our minds, we come up with all sorts of ideas of what we think He is like and begin to worship that. In the end, our hearts are wicked and deceitful, and we need His grace to worship Him rightly.
 
Peter's memory of Jesus (which thing is only presented to us in words not images, and in the "collective consciousness" of the gospel-record), whatever it amounted to, had the unique-to-him quality of reminding him of his Divine-encounter. Of his conversations with God, of his walks "in the garden in the cool of the day," communing with God-in-the-flesh. When our memories achieve the same thing, I think it will be OK for us to cherish them too.

If it is a sin to create a "vision" of Christ based on John's Rev. 1 imagery (arguably very not-literal, the pieces/parts of which are meant to convey information and not a picture), then, we really can't blame John for our abuse of Scripture. It is not to the purpose to say "I'm not going to call it sin, because John must have wanted us to envision Jesus ourselves according to this description." One's conviction regarding the sin will determine whether we attempt to recreate any such picture, and whether we think of any such picture recreated AS the Jesus whom John saw and we worship.

My caution, as stated previously, is that in reenvisioning the words as a picture, we are taking created things and attempting to "see" God thereby. How is that different from any instance of idolatry in the Bible or outside it? If we aren't attempting literally to "see God" by it, what are we doing with our picture? Seeing Jesus' humanity? OK, now we are in Nestorian waters; we are dividing up the Person, and furthermore using our "look" at him to "show us ourselves" rather than him "showing us the Father."

There is lots of other imagery in Revelation. The Lamb Slain. Do we attempt to envision that, and think "there, that picture is revealing God to me"? That which reveals God inspires devotion. The images we might create could come from every page of the Bible. Must be OK, right? It seems quite absurd to me, on these principles, not to see continuity between private mental images and filling our churches, front yards, rearview mirrors, and every other place with "biblically inspired images".

If I am correct, and there is no discontinuity, then suddenly the absolute prohibition of images under which to worship God makes perfect sense. We are to abolish the first form of it we recognize. And go back to earlier forms and abolish those. We must be iconoclasts from first to last, starting in our minds and hearts.

As I close, it comes to mind that there might be a question about the Bible as an object--since the Bible reveals God, is it an object of worship? Can it be an IDOL? It is possible to abuse the Bible, IF it is treated as an OBJECT. If it is used contrary to its AUTHORIZED purpose. The leather, paper, glue and ink of a book is no object of worship. But let me say this: an OPEN Bible, that is: the moment of comprehension, the medium and message of Christ, being read, is indeed a thing of worship to the heart of faith. Can you doubt it? Is it not the Divinity, Christ the Word, the Speaker, who is being revealed?

Ruining a Bible is not a sin; tragic maybe, costly perhaps; but an unintentional loss. But what was the sin of Jehoiakim, Jer. 36:23? It was hatred of the Word of the Lord. It was folly. It was irreverence of the highest (or lowest) degree. The vellum and ink were nothing. But cutting it and burning it was nonetheless an act of utmost sacrilege, as v24 to the end of the chapter indicates. The Bible is not a THING of worship, but reading it or hearing it read or preached renders its content--the message--a THING of worship.
 
The 2nd commandment prohibition has to do with the right worship of God. It has nothing whatever to do with the making of art, drawing of pictures, carving statues, dreaming, mental pictures in general, etc.

Regarding God-authorized forms of worship, i.e. tabernacle:

1st, a note on the brasen serpent: please note not merely Numbers 21, but also 2 Kings 18:4. The purpose of the serpent had been perverted.

Now then,
if God placed a symbol, object, pomegranate, cherubim, whatever in his Temple, then it had a divinely authorized purpose, and had to be used as such. Perhaps it was only there for beauty. It was not a thing under which to reveal God himself, or which should inspire worship.

It should also be remembered that the excessive (I uses that term guardedly) pomp of the Temple service was deliberate by God, as that which should obscure, or VEIL under the OT administration. God tells us in the NT that the law was meant as further blindness to those who were perishing (see 2 Cor. 3). These were types and shadows, and needed eventually to be removed for the better edification of God's people at the times of fulfillment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

NaphtaliPress
  • Locked
The Second Commandment, Westminster and Images of Jesus
Replies
4
Views
2K
BGF
BGF
C
  • Locked
2nd Helvetic Confession
Replies
3
Views
3K
Backwoods Presbyterian
Backwoods Presbyterian
RTaron
  • Locked
Picturing Jesus in our minds
Replies
16
Views
4K
RTaron
RTaron
B
  • Locked
2nd try, 1689 Baptist question
Replies
22
Views
4K
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
Herald
  • Locked
2nd London vs. Philadelphia Confession
Replies
12
Views
4K
rgrove
R
Back
Top