Quote
not sure....was Christ not a man? Is the only thing being conveyed is that Jesus was a man...and a compassionate one at that? Is this not wholly consistent with the biblical text...adding nothing of import, taking way nothing?
Laz,

See my comments concerning Chalcedon and the two natures of Christ. Further read my comments in regard to the human nature of Christ which was perfect in every way; without sin. To attempt to separate and portray the human nature of Christ apart from His divine nature is to fall into the errors of Nestorius. Further, even Christ's "compassion" transcended anything that even the best of men could hope to extend to others. Bottom line: how could any human hope to portray Christ, the incarnate Son of God, without bringing dishonor to Him? [Linked Image]

Quote
Are we prohibited from preaching about the horrid nature of the Crucifixion because of fear people will create images in their mind of what it must have been like and therefore be guilty of idol making?
This is a "tongue-in-cheek" question, right?

1 Corinthians 1:23-25 (ASV) "but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock, and unto Gentiles foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."


If pragmatism is to be the basis for deciding whether or not to preach the truth, as God commands us to do, then Stephen and all the Martyrs throughout history were evidently lacking in good judgment.

BTW, notice the exact words of the Second Commandment:

Exodus 20:4 (ASV) Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor 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 most reliable commentators, even some of us lesser students of Scripture, have always interpreted the emphasized phrase to mean that NO LIKENESS of any of the three persons of the Godhead, are to be made for ANY purpose whatsoever. I must agree with Ursinus, who wrote the Heidelberg Catechism, which says in Lord's Day 35

Quote
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

Herman Hoeksema, in his commentary, The Triple Knowledge (Reformed Free Publishing Association: Vol III, pp. 166-67), says on Lord's Day 35:

Quote
To this we may add that it is always quite impossible not only to make an image of God, but even to make an image of Christ incarnate. The Catechism contrasts the use of images in the churches with the lively preaching of the Word. And that is undoubtedly correct. Suppose you have images of all the phases of the historical Jesus, as He sojourned on earth in the years 1 to 33 A. D. Would all those images together be a true representation of the Christ of the Scriptures? They would not; and they never could be. You may make an image of the Babe of Bethlehem lying in the manger; but that image could never represent the Son of God incarnate. You can make images of all the phases of the suffering of Christ on the Via Dolorosa in its different stages — images that are usually set up in the Roman Catholic Churches; but can an image of the cross possibly represent the Word of the Cross, the logos tou staurou, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them? That is forever impossible. Such an image cannot possibly serve as a book for the laity, but can only serve to cover up the gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord. God was not only in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself when the Son of God in the human nature died on the accursed tree, but He also put the Word of the cross in the apostles. And the apostles proclaimed that Word of the cross. If it had not been for that revelation of God Himself, we could never have understood the cross. And that cross, arrested in one of its moments by a dumb image, is deprived of all its glory and power. And what to say of an image of the Christ in His resurrection, and in His ascension, and in His exaltation at the right hand of God? It is evident that a dumb image in wood or stone can only serve to deprive the exalted Christ of His glory and power. Hence, we must not have images in the churches, not even as books of the laity. For they can never represent the glorious gospel of God revealed in Jesus Christ our Lord. But we must have the lively preaching of the Word of God, which brings unto us the complete Christ of the Scriptures, the Son of God in the flesh, conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary, Who suffered and died for our sins, and in Whom God reconciled us unto Himself, Who rose for our justification in the glory of immortality, and Who is exalted at the right hand of God, there to make intercession for all His people. Hence, the Heidelberg Catechism is certainly correct when it states in the answer to Question 98:
“We must not pretend to be wiser than God, who will have his people taught, not by dumb images, but by the lively preaching of his word.”

Doubtless, what he wrote applies equally if not more to those who would take it upon themselves to portray the Lord Christ in a movie, play, etc.

In His Grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]