2 commandment violation...?

[PresbyDane]

Does watching movies like "Jesus of Nazereth" or "The passion of Christ" count as committing a violation?

 

[reformed trucker]

 

[OPC'n]

Yes

 

[Michael Doyle]

Seriously, I would have to say yes as this becomes an idol as many worship this created image of Jesus. How so? It becomes the accepted image of God to those who neglect scripture. In my humble opinion

 

[lshepler412]

Yes, movies would be included too as a violation. Here is what the Larger Catechism says on the second commandment.

Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; 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; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.

 

[Scottish Lass]

It's a violation. The fact that it's a movie is no different than a stationary image.

 

[Whitefield]

Yes, movies would be included too as a violation. Here is what the Larger Catechism says on the second commandment.

Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; 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; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.

And any mental image of Christ is an equivalent violation. Be careful when you read the Gospels.

 

[DonP]

I didn't go see it. But I wanted to and my friends all said it was so good.

I have enough challenges from the pictures I saw when I was younger and from time to time pop up before my eyes.

I don't think I have too much trouble with thoughts because I have never been able to figure out what the Father or Jesus looks like now in heaven, or to look at a throne or what. So i just talk to the invisible.

 

[Whitefield]

what ... Jesus looks like now in heaven

How is that relevant to the issue? The issue usually revolves around images of the incarnate Jesus .. not Jesus in heaven.

 

[lynnie]

How sad to think of never watching Ben Hur

 

[SolaScriptura]

How sad to think of never watching Ben Hur

I don't remember Jesus being shown in Ben Hur...

 

[DonP]

what ... Jesus looks like now in heaven

How is that relevant to the issue? The issue usually revolves around images of the incarnate Jesus .. not Jesus in heaven.

Nope. Check the LC Q & A quoted previously in the thread
The scriptures say no graven image, but the LC says thought images also. These are not limited to the incarnate Christ, but the Father also wouldn't you think?

 

[Timothy William]

Yes, it is a violation. The Passion was also a violation of good taste and sound theology.

 

[lynnie]

You never see his face in Ben Hur. You see him give Heston a drink of water when he is dying of thirst on the way to the galleys. You see him preaching from a distance, and on the cross from behind. His head is bowed as he drags the Cross to calvary.

Great movie!

 

[gene_mingo]

I'm tellin' ya, folks, that was not Jesus.

 

[Hamalas]

I'm tellin' ya, folks, that was not Jesus.

Don't be silly Josh! If Hollywood said it it has to be true right?

 

[Grace Alone]

I was about the only person in my PCA church (at the time) who did not go see Passion of the Christ. There were several reasons I did not wish to see it...not sure I wanted the actor's image in my mind when I read scripture about Jesus, sensationalized violence, a Roman Catholic influence, extrabiblical aspects.

There certainly must be a small minority even of reformed people who believe it is a violation because I didn't see much in the way of warnings for people not to see it around here. Makes you wonder about our churches, doesn't it?

 

[Whitefield]

what ... Jesus looks like now in heaven

How is that relevant to the issue? The issue usually revolves around images of the incarnate Jesus .. not Jesus in heaven.

Nope. Check the LC Q & A quoted previously in the thread
The scriptures say no graven image, but the LC says thought images also. These are not limited to the incarnate Christ, but the Father also wouldn't you think?

You are the one limiting ... my point is, as you read the Gospels and have some mental image of Jesus on the boat calming the storm, the WLC would say that mental image would be a violation, if we are consistent here.

 

[Marrow Man]

I was about the only person in my PCA church (at the time) who did not go see Passion of the Christ. There were several reasons I did not wish to see it...not sure I wanted the actor's image in my mind when I read scripture about Jesus, sensationalized violence, a Roman Catholic influence, extrabiblical aspects.

There certainly must be a small minority even of reformed people who believe it is a violation because I didn't see much in the way of warnings for people not to see it around here. Makes you wonder about our churches, doesn't it?

The church I was a member of at the time (also ARP) strongly discouraged members from seeing it, for the same reasons you mention.

 

[Grace Alone]

I was about the only person in my PCA church (at the time) who did not go see Passion of the Christ. There were several reasons I did not wish to see it...not sure I wanted the actor's image in my mind when I read scripture about Jesus, sensationalized violence, a Roman Catholic influence, extrabiblical aspects.

There certainly must be a small minority even of reformed people who believe it is a violation because I didn't see much in the way of warnings for people not to see it around here. Makes you wonder about our churches, doesn't it?

The church I was a member of at the time (also ARP) strongly discouraged members from seeing it, for the same reasons you mention.

Oh, that is good, Tim. I am in a more conservative church now, but I haven't asked how they would have handled that issue.

 

[DonP]

I was about the only person in my PCA church (at the time) who did not go see Passion of the Christ. There were several reasons I did not wish to see it...not sure I wanted the actor's image in my mind when I read scripture about Jesus, sensationalized violence, a Roman Catholic influence, extrabiblical aspects.

There certainly must be a small minority even of reformed people who believe it is a violation because I didn't see much in the way of warnings for people not to see it around here. Makes you wonder about our churches, doesn't it?

with all of that, my reasons too.

And yes I guess according to the LC it would be wrong to come up with an image of Christ on the boat if you worshiped it or used it to worship.

I don't really visualize Jesus on the boat or anywhere except the cross. I have been polluted with too many images of that not to have them come in. I try not to see a face or blur it with many so I don't think of one. I try to think of the blood the crown of thorns the piercings, the emotional suffering he was experiencing and not make an image of the man. But I do not think it is wrong to visualize what God has written in the word, but I do not hold on to a visualization to pray to or praise or worship.
This may not be clear but it is how I understand it.
Any input on he LC s interpretation and how we apply it.

 

[WaywardNowHome]

Personally, after reading this thread, it's very hard for me to NOT have some sort of mental image of what Jesus looked like. It's like telling someone not to think of a purple elephant... whoops!

 

[moral necessity]

As far as the graven image goes........my answer is "no". I am not worshipping the actor at all. In my mind, I totally disassociate Christ from the actor, and realize that the actor is simply trying to portray what my Christ might have appeared like. I look through what is presented to the reality behind the scene portrayed. I can separate Christ very well from the earthly representation that is being displayed of him. I know that he is represented all too poorly by every actor who endeavors to take on such a task. Yet, I view it as if someone were trying to portray to me someone that I value, in the best way that they could. They may be ignorant of the incredible worth and value of such a person, but they tried to portray them to the best of their minds as they could imagine. And so, I watch such movies through the filter of such interpretation. And so, I don't personally think it to be a sin to "watch" such movies. It may very well be a sin to allow one's view of Christ to be obscured by such movies, but it is not, in my opinion, a sin to view a movie like this, unless it leads one to stumble in their view of Christ and of God.

 

[ChristianHedonist]

So does simply viewing these movies violate the 2nd commandment? Or does it depend on the manner in which we view them?

 

[moral necessity]

So does simply viewing these movies violate the 2nd commandment? Or does it depend on the manner in which we view them?

in my opinion, "To the pure, all things are pure." - Tit. 1:15. God created every atom in the entire universe. If they are all fashioned together into a golden image, it is still a conglomoration of atoms in my mind, and so I can look upon it and praise him for it. But, if I view it as a god in itself and worthy of praise, then I am venturing outside of the proper realm of what I am to view such things as. So, in my mind, this is how I tend to separeate such circumstances of today. People may try to represent to me what Christ might have looked like. But, to me, appearance is not the main issue behind "graven image". To me, it boils down to something more than "looks". The idea is, "Is this a proper representation of Christ?" And, if not, then it still may be technically viewed by my eyes, but it is not worthy being viewed as an accurate representation of my Savior, and will not be viewed as worthy of my adoration or my worship.

 

[DonP]

Nice thoughts guys, and you might be OK, but that is not the Confessional understanding of the word.
I prefer to be safe, and repent of those thoughts when I have them and seek to not have any image and agree with the Confession and Catechism and not view pictorial representations of Jesus. I am not sure that if I had seen Him in the flesh He would look different than an actor or picture, but we are taught no representation can depict His God Man nature and therefore to picture Him where only a human form is seen is wrong.

Kind of like When Jesus told Thomas, blessed are those who have not seen and believe. We are to not see and believe. If God had thought it would help our worship to have pictures of Jesus He would have allowed it.

 

[Arch2k]

It seems that many would be wise to consider the first half of the commandment, that one is forbidden to fashon any image representing God whatsoever which is clearly taught in verse 4:
Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
The term "image" also has direct ties to the mind, as that is where all images and idols are thought of and created in the first place.

To quote Matthew McMahon (from his Icons, Graven Images and the Church):

The phrase ^l.-hf,[]t; al is in the imperfect tense accompanied with the negative, (2nd person masculine singular) meaning that men are not to “do, work, make, or produce” any image or picture which represents God. This has nothing to do with worshipping the image. Worshipping the image comes later. This simply addresses the “making” of the image. Imagining the form of the image, and fashioning it into that shape, is the first step in disobedience to the command. Sin always begins in the mind, and the commandment is given so that the imaginations of the mind are not excited and cultivated by the creation of the image.

I also think that it would be helpful to read James Fisher on the QUESTION 51. What is forbidden in the Second Commandment?

Here is a small selection:

Q. 1. What are the leading sins forbidden in this commandment?
A. Idolatry and will-worship.
Q. 2. What is the idolatry here condemned?
A. The worshipping of God by images: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image," &c.
Q. 3. What is an image?
A. It is a statue, picture, or likeness of any creature whatever.
Q. 4. Is it lawful to have images or pictures of mere creatures?
A. Yes, provided they be only for ornament; or the design be merely historical, to transmit the memory of persons and their actions to posterity.
Q. 5. Can any image or representation be made of God?
A. No; it is absolutely impossible; he being an infinite, incomprehensible Spirit, Isa. 40:18 -- "To whom will ye liken God? or, what likeness will ye compare unto him?" If we cannot delineate our own souls, much less the infinite God; Acts 17:29 -- "We ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device."
Q. 6. What judgment should we form of those who have devised images of God, or of the persons of the adorable Trinity?
A. We should adjudge their practice to be both unlawful and abominable.
Q. 7. Why unlawful?
A. Because directly contrary to the express letter of the law in this commandment, and many other scriptures, such as, Jer. 10:14, 15; Hos. 13:2, and particularly Deut. 4:15-19, 23 -- "Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves, (for ye saw NO MANNER of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb, out of the midst of the fire,) lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female," &c.
Q. 8. How is it abominable?
A. As debasing the Creator of heaven and earth to the rank of his own creatures; and a practical denial of all his infinite perfections, Psalm 50:21.
Q. 9. May we not have a picture of Christ, who has a true body?
A. By no means; because, though he has a true body and a reasonable soul, John 1:14, yet his human nature subsists in his divine person, which no picture can represent, Psalm 45:2.
Q. 10. Why ought all pictures of Christ to be abominated by Christians?
A. Because they are downright lies, representing no more than the picture of a mere man: whereas, the true Christ is God-man; "Immanuel, God with us," 1 Tim. 3:16; Matt. 1:23.
Q. 11. Is it lawful to form any inward representation of God, or of Christ, upon our fancy, bearing a resemblance to any creature whatever?
A. By no means; because this is the very inlet to gross outward idolatry: for, when once the Heathens "became vain in their imaginations, they presently changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things," Rom. 1:21, 23.

 

[toddpedlar]

So does simply viewing these movies violate the 2nd commandment? Or does it depend on the manner in which we view them?

in my opinion, "To the pure, all things are pure." - Tit. 1:15. God created every atom in the entire universe.

Yes he did. However, we are not to take collections of atoms and make images of God.

If they are all fashioned together into a golden image, it is still a conglomeration of atoms in my mind, and so I can look upon it and praise him for it. But, if I view it as a god in itself and worthy of praise, then I am venturing outside of the proper realm of what I am to view such things as.

The Israelites made images that they did not think WERE Jehovah, but were meant to REPRESENT him. They didn't pretend that the calf WAS Jehovah God, but used it to REPRESENT him. Yet they were condemned precisely for the sin of idolatry.

Why were they, if your view of the 2nd commandment is correct? They did not pretend that God was identical with the calf.

So, in my mind, this is how I tend to separeate such circumstances of today. People may try to represent to me what Christ might have looked like. But, to me, appearance is not the main issue behind "graven image".

Certainly. Appearance is NOT the main issue. "Graven" is. Made by men (with a graving tool or paintbrush, or celluloid, or digital media, it doesn't matter). Appearance is CERTAINLY not the important part of the command.

To me, it boils down to something more than "looks". The idea is, "Is this a proper representation of Christ?" And, if not, then it still may be technically viewed by my eyes, but it is not worthy being viewed as an accurate representation of my Savior, and will not be viewed as worthy of my adoration or my worship.

But, Charles, what if you (critierion aside, because I can't see how you would know) DID view such an image as an accurate representation of Jesus. Would it then be viewed as worthy of your adoration and worship?

 

[DonP]

So does simply viewing these movies violate the 2nd commandment? Or does it depend on the manner in which we view them?

in my opinion, "To the pure, all things are pure." - Tit. 1:15. God created every atom in the entire universe.

So if stealing is pure to me then I can do it?

What do you mean?

What would this verse mean?

1 Cor 10:23-28
All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. 24 Let no one seek his own, but each one the other's well-being.

25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience' sake; 26 for "the earth is the LORD's, and all its fullness."

27 If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience' sake. 28 But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake; NKJV

Apparently that which was pure and lawful somehow became unlawful for a Christian.

So I think you take your verse, all things are pure, out of context.

Not all things are pure.

This is an all thing, but God says it is impure

Eph 5:5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them NASB

Good explanation Todd,
By the way what do you Peddal?

 

[ClayPot]

Mental images of Jesus a violation?

If you're reading the gospels and think of a man walking on water, is that a violation of the 2nd commandment? Or is it more if you are thinking of Jesus in specific detail?

If it is the former, how can you read the gospels and think about what is happening? Thanks.