Movies about Jesus violate 2nd commandment?

shackleton · #1 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 03:58 PM

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?

NaphtaliPress · #2 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackleton

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

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:

Quote:

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 worshiping 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

christiana · #3 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 05:17 PM

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.

joshua · #4 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 05:38 PM

Making images that are intended to "represent" or "portray" God the Father, the Lord Jesus, or the Holy Spirit are, in fact, a violation of the Second Commandment. No man can "capture" God in His perfect completeness. Consequently, He cannot be rightly (fully, perfectly) "represented" or "portrayed" other than by Himself. There weren't cameras in Jesus' day, and even if there had have been, a photograph would not suffice as a complete representation of the essence of God. Furthermore, if we see something that's supposed to represent Christ, ought we not be brought to a sense of awe and reverence? Herein lies a dilemma and a Catch 22. If we're not brought to a worshipful state by an image (hypothetically permissible/authorized)that is supposed to represent God, then we're guilty of failing to worship. If, however, we are brought to worship, and have said image as our mind's understanding of God, we're guilty of idolatry. There cannot be a representation or portrayal of God Almighty that's neutral.

NaphtaliPress · #5 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 05:41 PM

Yep. Or as Thomas Vincent says:

Quote:

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.

joshua · #6 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 05:47 PM

You mean I didn't come up that?

NaphtaliPress · #7 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 05:49 PM

Yea, sorry, the patent was already filed on that one.

joshua · #8 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 05:56 PM

Good thing the Puritans don't mind me borrowin' the ideas they borrowed from God.

DMcFadden · #9 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 07:16 PM

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.

joshua · #10 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 07:18 PM

Bladestunner316 · #11 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 09:43 PM

I wholeheartedly agree any image of the so called Christ we see depicted is a violation of the 2nd commandment.

Davidius · #12 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 09:48 PM

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.

javajedi · #13 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackleton

I
What about bible tracts and Sunday School material?

Great Commission Publications (PCA/OPC) does not have images of Jesus in their Sunday School materials for this reason.

SouthernHero · #14 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 11:06 AM

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.

Daniel Ritchie · #15 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 12:10 PM

Quote:

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

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.

tcalbrecht · #16 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackleton

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?

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.

Contra_Mundum · #17 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 01:00 PM

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 worshiping according to idols.

"Little children, keep yourselves from idols." 1 John 5:21

Poimen · #18 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 01:15 PM

Preach it brother!

etexas · #19 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 01:33 PM

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????

(I would like to add I am not advocating a mental image thing......I am just a bit curious if others have this happen.)

SouthernHero · #20 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 01:48 PM

Right on, Contra.

toddpedlar · #21 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackleton

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?

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...