"The Passion of the Christ"

[Coram_Deo]

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image- any likenessof 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 nor 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 fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments." Ex 20:4-6
"...and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things" Rom 1:23.
Are there any fears that perhaps this movie has done just that? Made an image of God in the likeness of sinful man? If from here on out, whenever people think of the crucifixion and think of Christ, they get the image of the star of this movie; have we made an idol? Just curious what your thoughts on this topic are. Thanks.
Blessings,
Michael

 

[pastorway]

See this discussion also:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=3200

Phillip

PS - and YES, the movie makes an image of Christ in violation of the Second Commandment.

[Edited on 2-17-04 by pastorway]

 

[Guest]

[quote:9e5238f97b]

PS - and YES, the movie makes an image of Christ in violation of the Second Commandment.

[/quote:9e5238f97b]

I disagree, for the record. But I refuse to argue about it anymore. We have argued this issue to death. Gibson's interview with Diane Sawyer last night was awesome ! !

It is my prayer that God will use this film to draw people everywhere to Himself.

In spite of the imagery of the film and your interpretation of the so called second commandment (according to protestants), the dialogue is right from the Scriptures.

The Holy Spirit will certainly use the Word.

 

[heartoflesh]

After watching that interview with Mel Gibson, I just have to ask: Are [b:ef7412faef]all[/b:ef7412faef] Catholics universalists?

 

[Guest]

He did not say they would be saved . . he said it was possible for them to be saved . . . They still must receive the gift of faith. I read another interview where Mel said Christ was the only way to God.

I doubt he is a universalist. And his comment about all of us being God's children was, I believe, meant to imply that in a general sense, as in the Psalms.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I saw the Gibson interview. I must say I was rather pleased with his taking a stand against the secularism of our day. And that he defended salvation through Christ (though in a semi-pelagian form) certainly was refreshing considering the nonsense guys like the Davinci Code or the Peter Jennings religious specials ever put forth. But he still didn't go far enough. He stopped at Catholicism, which is not the gospel. And though I'm certain some good may come of his movie, I think that it will more than likely promote the decadent Evangelical/Roman merging trend which is growing so much today.

[Edited on 2-17-2004 by puritansailor]

 

[Scott Bushey]

If what Gibson presented was a semi-Pelagistic gospel, was it not illicit ?
Was his Christ, the Christ of the scriptures and if not, why do we as the REFORMED praise him?

 

[pastorway]

I will say that I will use every opportunity that God allows to tell people the [i:683768cf9a]real[/i:683768cf9a] story from the Scriptures when they bring the movie up.

I do have a problem though with the idea that all of the script is Biblical. It is not. Consider this from the article by Elder Andrew Webb (PCA) available at http://www.providencepca.com/essays/passion.html :

[quote:683768cf9a]Although it is widely thought that the script for the movie is based entirely on the gospel according to John, this is not the case. The script for The Passion of Christ contains much extrabiblical material, and is based in part on a mystical Roman Catholic devotional work by an 18th century German Nun (Sister Anne Emmerich) entitled The Dolorous Passion of Christ. Gibson stated on EWTN that reading Emmerich's book was his primary inspiration for making the movie. By introducing extrabiblical elements, not only does The Passion of Christ change some of the theological emphases of the Biblical account of Christ's crucifixion, but it will also create a false impression amongst the very "seekers" that Evangelicals are trying to reach, that things were said and done at the crucifixion that did not actually happen. For Evangelicals, who would feel very uncomfortable with a version of the Bible that put words into the mouth of Christ that He never spoke, to endorse a movie that does the very same thing seems hopelessly inconsistent. Protestants traditionally rejected the Apocrypha precisely because these books were fabricated and contained inauthentic material, despite the fact that these books might have been useful for evangelism. For modern evangelicals to embrace a vehicle that is inauthentic in order to achieve evangelistic ends indicates a serious decline in faithfulness.

The goal of the movie is to shake modern audiences by brashly juxtaposing the "sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of the altar - which is the same thing," said Gibson.

The script of The Passion of Christ was specifically intended to link the crucifixion of Christ with what Roman Catholics believe is the re-sacrificing of Christ that occurs in the mass. Gibson's intent is to show us that the sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the altar (the mass) are the same thing. Protestant Evangelicals have historically rejected the idea that Christ can be sacrificed again and declared it "abominable." Speaking of the concept that the Crucifixion and the mass is the same thing, the Protestant Westminster Confession declares:

"In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to his Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of his elect."
[/quote:683768cf9a]

This extra-biblical sourse is a mystic nun who recorded visions and thought that she was transported back to the crucifixion to see it as it happened. As Webb quotes one paragraph from this work:

[quote:683768cf9a]"The hour of our Lord was at last come; his death-struggle had commenced; a cold sweat overspread every limb. John stood at the foot of the Cross, and wiped the feet of Jesus with his scapular. Magdalen was crouched to the ground in a perfect frenzy of grief behind the Cross. The Blessed Virgin stood between Jesus and the good thief, supported by Salome and Mary of Cleophas, with her eyes riveted on the countenance of her dying Son. Jesus then said: 'It is consummated;' and, raising his head, cried out in a loud voice, 'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.' These words, which he uttered in a clear and thrilling tone, resounded through heaven and earth; and a moment after, he bowed down his head and gave up the ghost. I saw his soul, under the appearance of a bright meteor, penetrate the earth at the foot of the Cross. John and the holy women fell prostrate on the ground."

Emmerich's book is literally filled with scenes like those above, and includes many extra-biblical sayings of Jesus which Sister Anne says she personally heard in her visions.[/quote:683768cf9a]

Second Command or not, there are other problems with this movie!

We must be prepared to tell the truth of the gospel for those who will come away from seeing it with questions. But we do not have to see it to be prepared to tell the truth!

Like I said, I don't need the movie, I have the Bible.

Phillip

[Edited on 2-17-04 by pastorway]

 

[raderag]

[quote:038e12b8ef][i:038e12b8ef]Originally posted by Rick Larson[/i:038e12b8ef]
After watching that interview with Mel Gibson, I just have to ask: Are [b:038e12b8ef]all[/b:038e12b8ef] Catholics universalists? [/quote:038e12b8ef]

Actally, most Catholics, even the very conservative ones are inclusivist. That is they believe it is possible to be saved appart from faith in Christ, but not without Christ. This was taught beginning in the 19th century, and strongly contradicts athanasia:

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
...
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

 

[pastorway]

That "reformed Christian in the movie industry" also recommends the movie [i:808c180bdf]Bruce Almighty[/i:808c180bdf] as a "Christian Themed" best pick.

Phillip :no::shocked:

 

[Scott Bushey]

Paul,
I will have to agree with Phillip. This was not really a review. The author (in my opinion) goes into detail to describe what occurs in the movie in relation to scripture. He fails to address the issues that fly in the face of biblical orthodoxy, i.e the breaking of the 2nd commandment, the semi-pelagian Christ, etc.

 

[fredtgreco]

Not the worst light. But (as always) the burden (yes, I'll beat the drum again) is on those who fly in the face of orthodoxy - yes historical confessionalism - to prove themselves.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

to depart from historical orthodoxy is to become a schismatic (to a certain extent). Issues surrounding the 10 Commandments should not be something that any body of beleivers, anywhere, mess up. Unfortunately too many are following much of revivalism's "we are not under law but grace!!" banner.

 

[Scott]

Webmaster wrote: "to depart from historical orthodoxy is to become a schismatic (to a certain extent). Issues surrounding the 10 Commandments should not be something that any body of beleivers, anywhere, mess up."

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that "historical orthodoxy" entails the belief that second commandment does not forbid people from making an image of Christ's humanity?

That would seem strange like a strange position to take. In terms of "historical orthodoxy" (which, I agree, it is good tomaintain), it would seem that the iconoclast controversies of the 8th centuries would have resolved this in favor of those who permit images. Further, it has been the historical practice of the orthodox elements of the church to permit images.

In any event, the interpretation of the scriptures to permit of images was based on very orthodox considerations, including this historical reality of Christ the man (Christ was fully man). His manhood is not mixed with his deity, even though they were inseparably joined. His manhood could be depicted, even if His deity could not. If His manhood could not be depicted then He was not really a man after all.

Scott

 

[Scott]

Fred:

What is your understanding of orthodoxy on this issue? Who or what (each individual, a council, or what) has the authority to define orthodox interpretations of the Bible (with all sides recognizing that the final authority is the Bible)?

Since this is a matter of orthodoxy, are you saying that those who use and approve of images of Christ are "heretics?"

Thanks

 

[Guest]

I second Scott's questions . . .

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Scott:

Augustine of Hippo (4th c.)

"Thus, they erred, who sought Christ and his apostles not in the sacred writings, but on painted walls."



Council of Elibertine

"Pictures ought not to be in churches, nor any object of adoration or praise be painted on the walls."



John Calvin (16th c.)

Treatise on Relics

"As soon as anyone has devised an image of God, they have instituted false worship. The object of Moses is to restrain the rashness of men, lest they should travesty God's glory by their imaginations."



The church in the beginning tolerated these abuses, as a temporary evil, but was afterwards unable to remove them; and they became so strong, particularly during the prevailing ignorance of the middle ages, that the church ended by legalizing, through her decrees, that at which she did nothing but wink at first. I shall endeavor to give my readers a rapid sketch of the rise, progress, and final

establishment of the Pagan practices which not only continue to prevail in the Western as well as in the Eastern church, but have been of late, notwithstanding the boasted progress of intellect in our days, manifested in as bold as successful a manner. (Page 8)



It appears, however, that the use of pictures was creeping into the church

already in the third century, because the council of Elvira in Spain, held in

305, especially forbids to have any picture in the Christian churches. (Page 11)



Such a practice was, however, fraught with the greatest danger, as experience has but too much proved. It was replacing intellect by sight. Instead of elevating man towards God, it was bringing down the Deity to the level of his finite intellect, and it could not but powerfully contribute to the rapid spread of a pagan anthropomorphism in the church. (Page 11)



Now, the origin and root of this evil, has been, that, instead of discerning Jesus Christ in his Word, his Sacraments, and his Spiritual Graces, the world has, according to its 'custom, amused itself with his clothes, shirts, and sheets, leaving thus the principal to follow the accessory. (Page 133)



I know well that there is a certain appearance of real devotion and zeal in the allegation, that the relics of Jesus Christ are preserved on account of the honor that is rendered to him, and in order the better to preserve his memory. But it is necessary to consider what St Paul says, that every service of God invented by man, whatever appearance of wisdom it may have, is nothing better than vanity and foolishness, if it has no other foundation than our own devising. (Page 133)



John Owen

Works of Owen, Volume 14

"And these fine discourses of the "actuosity of the eye above the ear," and

its faculty of administering to the fancy, are but pitiful, weak attempts, for

men that have no less work in hand than to set up their own wisdom in the

room of and above the wisdom of God." (Page 149)



"Besides, who appointed them to be made? As I take it, it was God himself, who did therein no more contradict himself than he did when he commanded his people to spoil the Egyptians, having yet forbid all men to steal. His own special

dispensation of a law constitutes no general rule; so that (whoever are blind or fools) it is certain that the making of images for religious veneration is expressly forbidden of God unto the sons of men. But, alas! "They were foreign images, the ugly faces of Moloch, Dagon, Ashtaroth; he forbade not his own." Yea, but they are images or likenesses of himself that, in the first place and principally, he forbids them to make; and he en-forceth his command upon them from hence, that when he spake unto them in Horeb they "saw no manner of similitude," (Page 150)



Works of Owen, Volume 1

"So do the Papists delude themselves. Their carnal affections are excited by their outward senses to delight in images of Christ, - in his sufferings, his resurrection, and glory above. Hereon they satisfy themselves that they behold the glory of Christ himself and that with love and great delight. But whereas there is not the least true representation made of the Lord Christ or his glory in these things, - that being confined absolutely unto the gospel alone, and this way of attempting it being laid under a severe interdict, - they do but sport themselves with their own deceivings." (Page 372)



Works of Owen, Volume 8, Sermon 15

"This, therefore, is evident, that the introduction of this abomination, in principle and practice destructive unto the souls of men, took its rise from the loss of an experience of the representation of Christ in the gospel, and the transforming power in the minds of men which it is accompanied with, in them that believe." (Page 649) (cf. Owen, Volume 1, Page 244)



Thomas Watson (17th c.)

The Ten Commandments

"Nor the likeness of any thing" means, "All ideas, portraits, shapes, images of God, whether by effigies or pictures, is hereby forbidden to be made." God is to be adored in the heart, not painted to the eye. To set up an image to represent God is to debase him. Idolatry is devil worship."



Francis Turretin (17th c.)

"Any religious worship should not be paid to images; thinking piously before an image is forbidden. We condemn here the treatment of sacred or religious images that are supposed to contribute something to the excitement of religious feeling. God forbids the making of them and the worship of them."



Matthew Henry (17th c.)

"Our religious worship must be governed by the power of faith, not by the power of imagination. Idolatry is spiritual adultery."



John Gill (18th c.)

"No image of God was to be made at all, since no similitude was ever seen of Him, or any likeness could be conceived; and it must be a piece of gross ignorance, madness and impudence to pretend to make one; and great impiety to worship it."



Charles Hodge (18th c.)

"Idolatry consists not only in the worship of false gods, but also in the worship of the true God by images."



J.I. Packer (20th c.)

"We are not to make use of visual or pictorial representations of the Triune God, or of any person of the Trinity, for the purposes of Christian worship."

The above are just a few basic quotes. you can find this all through church history.

You also want to be sure you understadn this surrounds HOW one worships, and WHAT worship is. Jeremiah Burroughs calls worship in all senses "high thoughts of God." When you look at the movie screen and see "Christ" being whipped and scourged, you cry. You are affected by having "high thoughts" about Christ and what he has done. However, the images, then, become themeans by which you worship, and not the Word of God.

Also, you want to make a distinction - and this is IMPORTANT:

Jesus is not God.
Jesus is not man.
Jesus is THE GOD-MAN.

His nature is ONE PERSON, not two. To ATTEMPT to protray his humanity without his personality (his divinity encapsulating the "person" of the Christ) you tear apart the central doctrine of the Bible concerning the nature and person of the redeemer.

Jesus was not a humna being with a seperate personality fromt he Son of God as divine. He is ONE PERSON, two natures. It is his divinity that animates the personality of the human being of the Christ. No man, then is able to capture this on film, in a picture, in an idol, etc. That is the reason, the point of it all, where God institutes the second commandment. The golden calf was not "Yahweh" - rather it represented the "strength of God." Or so the Israelties thought. Now is it a bad thing to represent part of God? Yes. Moses was ticked at them for doing so and breaking the commandments. is it wrong to represent Christ? yes, his divinity cannot be separated from him humanity - it is impossible to attempt it. No sinful human being can EVER "play" Jesus. Not even in his humanity can he be rightfully protrayed. No one is sinless.

On all acounts, what the "Passion" movie does is detract from Christ, from God and fromt he Scriptures. It uses another medium for you to have "high thoughts" of God - something HE does not allow.

[Edited on 2-17-2004 by webmaster]

 

[Scott]

Webmaster:

Thanks for the response and that was a very good Puritan statement. I think your position is certainly consistent with Puritan theology and much of early Reformed theology (excluding Lutherans and Anglicans).

I understand what your interpretation of the Second Commandment is. My question was a little different.

You believe that your interpretation of the Second Commandment is part of what you termed "historical orthodoxy." What is the content of this historical orthodoxy and why does your interpretation of the Second Commandment fall within this realm? Citing specific authors I don't think gets us there, because none of them had actual authority in resolving conflicting interpretations. Further, there are Patristic writers who do affirm the use of images and the presence of images is found in the earliest Christian archeological findings. One example would be John Chrysostom, who was second only to Augustine in terms of whom Calvin liked to approvingly quote.

Biblically, the type of body entrusted with the authority to resolve matters of faith would be proper church councils, which are modeled for us in Acts 15. By including your interpretation of the Second Commandment as part of the content of "historical orthodoxy" you have moved beyond the Apostles' Creed and the ecumenical conciliar decisions, which do not address the issue (indeed, the only one that does is a later one that affirms the use of icons, although few Protestants recognize that as a binding decision).

So, does my question make sense now?

BTW, I think your personal explanation of how Jesus' divinity animates his humanity was good.

Scott

 

[FrozenChosen]

"We are not to make use of visual or pictorial representations of the Triune God, or of any person of the Trinity, [b:bc2a6d0560]for the purposes of Christian worship.[/b:bc2a6d0560]"

-J.I. Packer

Shouldn't the movie be then evaluated on a personal level? I realize the church is practically worshipping this movie before they see it, but the 2nd commandment is about worship, is it not? Couldn't we forbit ALL artwork because of the commandment?

 

[Me Died Blue]

When I first started reading this thread, I wasn't sure if I agreed with the claim that the Passion film is making a sinful depiction of Christ. Exodus 20:4 (ESV) says, "You shall not make for yourself a carved 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," and I was trying to interpret the first part ("in heaven above&quot in light of the second ("in the earth beneath&quot.

I then read how the first part of the verse, forbidding imagery of anything in heaven (God in this case), is interpreted by Romans 1:23, "and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles," which caused me to agree that films such as "The Passion of the Christ" are indeed sinful violations of biblical instructions.

The question I still have is how the second part of the verse is interpreted in light of the first. Romans 1:23 shows that the Exodus 20:4 command not to make [i:593de40b4d]any[/i:593de40b4d] images of [i:593de40b4d]anything[/i:593de40b4d] in heaven above really does mean [i:593de40b4d]exactly[/i:593de40b4d] what it seems to mean at face value. My question is, in light of that, why wouldn't the second part, forbidding us to make any images of anything on earth, be interpreted in the same strict sense that we know the first part is to be, implying the forbidding of things such as sculptures of trees, photos of people, etc.?

Any insight on this would be much appreciated, as I'm really trying to understand it.

[Edited on 2-17-2004 by Me Died Blue]

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:b520fbfb0d][i:b520fbfb0d]Originally posted by Me Died Blue[/i:b520fbfb0d]
When I first started reading this thread, I wasn't sure if I agreed with the claim that the Passion film is making a sinful depiction of Christ. Exodus 20:4 (ESV) says, "You shall not make for yourself a carved 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," and I was trying to interpret the first part ("in heaven above&quot in light of the second ("in the earth beneath&quot.

I then read how the first part of the verse, forbidding imagery of anything in heaven (God in this case), is interpreted by Romans 1:23, "and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles," which caused me to agree that films such as "The Passion of the Christ" are indeed sinful violations of biblical instructions.

The question I still have is how the second part of the verse is interpreted in light of the first. Romans 1:23 shows that the Exodus 20:4 command not to make [i:b520fbfb0d]any[/i:b520fbfb0d] images of [i:b520fbfb0d]anything[/i:b520fbfb0d] in heaven above really does mean [i:b520fbfb0d]exactly[/i:b520fbfb0d] what it seems to mean at face value. My question is, in light of that, why wouldn't the second part, forbidding us to make any images of anything on earth in the same strict sense that we know the first part means, implying the forbidding of things such as sculptures of trees, photos of people, etc.?

Any insight on this would be much appreciated, as I'm really trying to understand it.

[Edited on 2-17-2004 by Me Died Blue] [/quote:b520fbfb0d]

By precept and divine example. The precept is that the image being made in Romans 1 is that of God. The example being that God Himself tells the Israeiltes to fashion images or likenesses of certain things that are not images of God - pomegrantes, cherubim, etc in the tabernacle/temple. It is not possible that the 2nd commandment forbids all images, else God is a fool.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Fred, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that, if Exodus 20:4 was simply taken by itself, its two commands (forbidding us to make images of 1) things in heaven, and 2) things on earth) would indeed have to be interpreted fully and literally in the same way, but that examples elsewhere in Scripture show us that they are in fact not to be interpreted identically, since divine example is just as inspired as divine command.

Am I reading you right? If so, I agree and see what you mean, and now understand how the two commands in Exodus 20:4 are to be interpreted.

[Edited on 2-18-2004 by Me Died Blue]

 

[Me Died Blue]

Paul, in response to your statement that movies such as Gibson's need not have any relation to our worship, consider Matt's comment made earlier in this thread: "You also want to be sure you understadn this surrounds HOW one worships, and WHAT worship is. Jeremiah Burroughs calls worship in all senses 'high thoughts of God.' When you look at the movie screen and see 'Christ' being whipped and scourged, you cry. You are affected by having 'high thoughts' about Christ and what he has done. However, the images, then, become themeans by which you worship, and not the Word of God."

Also, Romans 1:23 condemns the very linking of God with corruptible things in our minds at all, whether you agree that it can be called "worship" or not.

Hope this helps.

[Edited on 2-18-2004 by Me Died Blue]

 

[Me Died Blue]

Arguing Sola Scriptura, what do you think of Romans 1:23? I think this clarifies the issue regardless of one's interpretation of the second commandment.

 

[fredtgreco]

Paul,

{Edited}
I assume that you have rejected the teaching of the Larger Catechism, in which the divines states that you are in error:

[quote:cc6a03346a]WLC 109 What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising,(1) counselling,(2) commanding,(3) using,(4) and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself;(5) tolerating a false religion;(6) 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;(7) all worshipping of it,(8) or God in it or by it;(9) the making of any representation of feigned deities,(10) and all worship of them, or service belonging to them;(11) all superstitious devices,(12) corrupting the worship of God,(13) adding to it, or taking from it,(14) whether invented and taken up of ourselves,(15) or received by tradition from others,(16) though under the title of antiquity,(17) custom,(18) devotion,(19) good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever;(20) simony;(21) sacrilege;(22) all neglect,(23) contempt,(24) hindering,(25) and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.(26)

(1)Numb. 15:39
(2)Deut. 13:6-8
(3)Hosea 5:11; Micah 6:16
(4)1 Kings 11:33; 1 Kings 12:33
(5)Deut 12:30-32
(6)Deut 13:6-12; Zech. 13:2,3; Rev. 2:2,14,15,20; Rev. 17:12,16,17
(7)Deut. 4:15-19; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:21-23,25
(8)Dan. 3:18; Gal. 4:8
(9)Exod. 32:5
(10)Exod. 32:8
(11)1 Kings 18:26,28; Isa. 65:11
(12)Acts 17:22; Col. 2:21-23
(13)Mal. 1:7,8,14
(14)Deut. 4:2
(15)Ps. 106:39
(16)Matt. 15:9
(17)1 Pet. 1:18
(18)Jer. 44:17
(19)Isa. 65:3-5; Gal. 1:13,14
(20)1 Sam. 13:11,12; 1 Sam. 15:21
(21)Acts 8:18
(22)Rom. 2:22; Mal. 3:8
(23)Exod. 4:24-26
(24)Matt. 22:5; Mal. 1:7,13
(25)Matt. 23:13
(26)Acts 13:44,45; 1 Thess. 2:15,16 [/quote:cc6a03346a]

as well as Deut 4, which says nothing about "worship":
[quote:cc6a03346a]Deuteronomy 4:14 "And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might observe them in the land which you cross over to possess. 15 " Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, 16 "lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of any figure: the likeness of male or female, 17 "the likeness of any animal that is on the earth or the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, 18 "the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground or the likeness of any fish that is in the water beneath the earth.[/quote:cc6a03346a]

The Heidelberg makes no worship/non-worship distinction about images of God either:
[quote:cc6a03346a]Q96: What does God require in the second Commandment?
A96: That we in no way make any image of God,[1] nor worship Him in any other way than He has commanded us in His Word.[2]

1. Deut. 4:15-19; Isa. 40:18, 25; Rom. 1:22-24; Acts 17:29
2. I Sam. 15:23; Deut. 4:23-24; 12:30-32; Matt. 15:9; John 4:24

Q97: May we not make any image at all?
A97: 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 of any likeness of them, either to worship them or to serve God by them.[1]

1. Exod. 23:24-25; 34:13-14; Deut. 7:5; 12:3; 16:22; II Kings 18:4; John 1:18

Q98: But may not pictures be tolerated in churches as books for the people?

A98: No, for we should not be wiser than God, who will not have His people taught by dumb idols,[1] but by the lively preaching of His Word.[2]

1. Jer. 10:8; Hab. 2:18-19
2. II Peter 1:19; II Tim. 3:16-17; Rom. 10:17[/quote:cc6a03346a]

Neither does the 2nd Helvetic:
[quote:cc6a03346a]"And because God is an invisible Spirit, and an incomprehensible Essence, he can not, therefore, by any art or image be expressed. For which cause we fear not, with the Scripture, to term the images of God mere lies.

"We do therefore reject not only the idols of the Gentiles, but also the images of Christians. For although Christ took upon him man's nature, yet he did not therefore take it that he might set forth a pattern for carvers and painters. He denied that he came to destroy the law and the prophets (Matt. 5:17), but images are forbidden in the law and the prophets (Deut. 4:15; Is. 44:9). He denied that his bodily presence would profit the church, but promised that he by his Spirit be present with us forever (John 16:7; 2 Corinthians. 5:5).

"Who would, then, believe that the shadow or picture of his body doth any whit benefit the godly? And seeing that he abideth in us by the Spirit, 'we are therefore the temples of God' (1 Corinthians 3:16); but 'what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?' (2 Corinthians 6:16). And seeing that the blessed spirits and saints in heaven, while they lived here, abhorred all worship done unto themselves (Acts 3:12; and 14:15; Rev. 19:10 and 22:9), and spake against images, who can think it likely that the saints in heaven, and the angels, are delighted with their own images, whereunto men do bow their knees, uncover their heads, and give other such like honor?

"But that men might be instructed in religion, and put in mind of heavenly things and of their own salvation, the Lord commanded to preach the Gospel (Mark 16:15) - not to paint and instruct the laity by pictures; he also instituted sacraments, but he nowhere appointed images.

"Furthermore, in every place which way soever we turn our eyes, we may see the lively and true creatures of God, which if they be marked, as is meet, they do much more effectually move the beholder than all the images of vain, unmovable, rotten, and dead pictures of all men whatsoever; of which the prophet spake truly, 'they have eyes, and see not,' etc. (Psa. 115:5).

"Therefore we approve the judgment of Lactantius, an ancient writer, who says, 'Undoubtedly there is no religion where there is a picture.' And we affirm that the blessed bishop Epiphanius did well, who, finding on the church-doors a veil, that had painted on it the picture, as it might be, of Christ or some saint or other, he cut and took it away; for that, contrary to the authority of Scriptures, he had seen the picture of a man to hang in the Church of Christ: and therefore he charged that from henceforth no such veils, which were contrary to religion, should be hung up in the Church of Christ, but that rather such scruple should be taken away which was unworthy of the Church of Christ and all faithful people. Moreover, we approve this sentence of St. Augustine, 'Let not the worship of men's works be a religion unto us; for the workmen themselves that make such things are better, whom yet we ought not to worship' (De Vera Religione, Cap. 55)."
[/quote:cc6a03346a]

Calvin clearly states that it is not worship + an image that is the problem, but rather that the image itself produces false worship:

[quote:cc6a03346a]"In the First Commandment, after He had taught who was the true God, He commanded that he alone should be worshipped; and now He defines what is His legitimate worship. Now, since these are two distinct things, we conclude that the commandments are also distinct, in which different things are treated of. The former indeed proceeds in order, viz, that believers are to be contented with one God; but it would not be sufficient for us to be instructed to worship Him alone, unless we also knew the manner in which He would be worshipped. The sum is, that the worship of God must be spiritual, in order that it may correspond with His nature. For although Moses only speaks of idolatry, yet there is no doubt but that by synecdoche, as in all the rest of the law, he condemns all fictitious services which men in their ingenuity have invented."

Comment on Ex. 20:4-6; Deut. 5:8-10.

Harmony of the Last Four Books of Moses

Vol. II, p. 107.

"There is no need of refuting the foolish fancy of some, that all sculptures and pictures are here condemned by Moses, for he had no other object than to rescue God's glory from all the imaginations which tend to corrupt it.... Some expound the words, 'Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven image, which thou mayest adore;' as if it were allowable to make a visible image of God, provided it be not adored; but the expositions which will follow will easilty refute their error. Meanwhile, I do not deny that these things are to be taken connectedly, since superstitious worship is hardly ever separated from the preceding error; for as soon as any one has permitted himself to devise an image of God, he immediately falls into false worship."

Ibid., p. 108.


"For when Jeremiah declares that 'the stock is a doctrine of vanities,' (Jeremiah 10:8,) and Habakkuk, 'that the molten image' is 'a teacher of lies,' the general doctrine to be inferred certainly is, that every thing respecting God which is learned from images is futile and false. If it is objected that the censure of the prophets is directed against those who perverted images to purposes of impious superstition, I admit it to be so; but I add, (what must be obvious to all,) that the prophets utterly condemn what the Papists hold to be an undoubted axiom, viz., that images are substitutes for books."

Calvin's Institutes Book I Chapter 11 Section 5

"Now we must remark, that there are two parts in the Commandment - the first forbids the erection of a graven image, or any likeness; the second prohibits the transferring of the worship which God claims for Himself alone, to any of these phantoms or delusive shows. Therefore, to devise any image of God, is in itself impious; because by this corruption His Majesty is adulterated, and He is figured to be other than he is. There is no need of refuting the foolish fancy of some, that all sculptures and pictures are here condemned by Moses, for he had no other object than to rescue God's glory from all the imaginations which tend to corrupt it."
[/quote:cc6a03346a]

As I have said (way too many times) before, if you think that the 2nd commandment is only about worshipping an idol, then join with Rome and combine the 1st and 2nd commandments. As Calvin so clearly points out, the 1st is about the WHO of worship, the second is about false means in worship, which includes ANY viewing of an image of God.

[Edited on 2-18-2004 by fredtgreco]

[Edited on 2-20-2004 by fredtgreco]

 

[Me Died Blue]

And, Paul, in response to your rhetorical question of whether worshipping through creation is sinful (if films like "Passion" are), the difference is that Scripture commands [i:f925a12c16]us[/i:f925a12c16] not to make images for that purpose. [i:f925a12c16]We[/i:f925a12c16] make things such as Gibson's film, but [i:f925a12c16]God[/i:f925a12c16] makes creation. We're not forbidden from worshipping God through all external images (e.g. Sacraments)...we're just commanded not to make our own such images, hence the regulative principle.

[Edited on 2-18-2004 by Me Died Blue]

 

[turmeric]

I apologize for bringing up the 2 natures of Christ on the other thread. I heard about the Romanist argument with the Byzantine church about Monophysitism and found it interesting, however after reading your posts and with a little thought I see that the Romanists got it wrong also (and I with them), since the 2 natures cannot be divided.

 

[BrianLanier]

Paul,

Have you read John Murray's article, [u:d7524e44b4]Pictures of Christ[/u:d7524e44b4]? It can be read here.

I think it is interesting in how it deals with the whole "I am not worshipping the image" spin on the debate. Curious to hear your reponse to Murray.

 

[Craig]

Does anyone who thinks this movie breaks the 2nd commandment think that God broke this commandment also?

Remember...God revealed Himself in a burning bush...as a pillar of fire...a pillar of cloud...and, oh yeah, in the FLESH.

How many of your churches have some sort of geometrical abstraction representing the Trinity? That, my friends, is also an image.

Are images of God wrong? Yes...is an actor portraying Jesus Christ wrong? Possibly...in the case of this movie? I don't know...I'll find out. I just find it difficult to swallow the interpretation some of you are giving for the second commandment. Do you guys just think in abstractions? I can to an extent...but you know what, God gave us eyes and MINDS to INTERPRET them. If you decide to take the image, bypass your mind, and worship it, or allow the image IN ITSELF to guide your thoughts, you are then committing idolatry. Perhaps I am missing part of the definition, but this seems to be the HOW of it.

The only people who will use the movie for idolatrous purposes will be Romanists...and apparently Paul.... :saint:

 

[BrianLanier]

Here is a quote from Murray's article to get things started.


[quote:16a153a273]
The question of the propriety of pictorial representations of the Saviour is one that merits examination. It must be granted that the worship of Christ is central in our holy faith, and the thought of the Saviour must in every instance be accompanied with that reverence which belongs to his worship. We cannot think of him without the apprehension of the majesty that is his. If we do not entertain the sense of his majesty, then we are guilty of impiety and we dishonor him.

It will also be granted that the only purpose that could properly be served by a pictorial representation is that it would convey to us some thought or lesson representing him, consonant with truth and promotive of worship. Hence the question is inescapable: is a pictorial representation a legitimate way of conveying truth regarding him and of contributing to the worship which this truth should evoke?

We are all aware of the influence exerted on the mind and heart by pictures. Pictures are powerful media of communication. How suggestive they are for good or for evil and all the more so when accompanied by the comment of the spoken or written word! It is futile, therefore, to deny the influence exerted upon mind and heart by a picture of Christ. And if such is legitimate, the influence exerted should be one constraining to worship and adoration. To claim any lower aim as that served by a picture of the Saviour would be contradiction of the place which he must occupy in thought, affection, and honour.
[/quote:16a153a273]