The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Gibson Jesus movie

Hi again all,<br><br>Just wanted to know what happened to the movie Mel Gibson was/had made about the life of Christ. "the Passion"? I understood that a lot of Jews were upset about it or some thing and I haven't heard any more about it.<br>Did it flop or had it not been released yet? just wondering.<br><br><br>God<br>bless

It hasn't been released yet. It is slated for release Easter 2004. <br>Obviously, Gibson is bringing his RCC baggage with the film, but the sections I have seen of it are outstanding. One fellow who attends my church had opportunity to see it in its entirety, and said that is was probably the best Jesus film he has seen to date. <br>Only time will tell if it will flop or not. If Mel is insistent on keeping the Aramaic untranslated, it will more than likely flop.<br><br>Fred

Oh' Ok,<br>thank :-) I haven't heard any thing else about it and I wasn't sure. Some thing else I was wondering about though, seeing that over the years many movies have been made about the life of Christ is this a violation of the second Commandment?<br><br>Exodus 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.<br><br>just wondering.<br><br><br>God<br>blless

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Some thing else I was wondering about though, seeing that over the years many movies have been made about the life of Christ is this a violation of the second Commandment?</font><hr></blockquote><p>There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that such films are blasphemous and a violation of the Second Commandment. Another consideration must be in the idiocy of any man to think that he could actually "portray Christ", the incarnate Son of the Living God. It's sheer lunacy! How can a sin-laden man, even one who has been washed in the blood of Christ (remember: simul iustus et peccator), presume to be able to think, act, speak or even walk as a PERFECT human being, never mind within whom the entire Godhead dwelt. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/igiveup.gif" alt="igiveup" title="igiveup[/img]<br><br>Can you guess? I have strong views on these things! <br><br>In His Grace,

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I haven't heard any thing else about it and I wasn't sure. Some thing else I was wondering about though, seeing that over the years many movies have been made about the life of Christ is this a violation of the second Commandment?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>(Fred) I have a dissenting opinion from Pilgrim's. I don't think it is blasphemous because the second commandment has to do with graven images in the place of worship. We could not have any depection of Christ, or any biblical event, in art form if it is a violation of the 2nd commandment. One of the most moving paintings is Lenardo DaVinci's painting of Christ and the 12 apostles in the boat during the storm. A fantastic piece of art. <br>As long as such a film is done historically, and with reverence to the subject being portrayed, I believe it is fine. This would go with any movie portraying biblical history, and I would add, secular history as well. Obviously, you have examples of what would better be defined as sacreligious films, like "Jesus Christ Superstar" and "The Last Temptation of Christ," but most are not meant to be sacreligious. Even the 10 Commandments, which really doesn't get anything right historically about the Exodus, was a noble attempt to portray that event. <br>I would say that probably one of the best "Jesus" films to date is Ben Hur, because the Christ figure is never seen, or seen at such a distance, that you cannot make out his face; Yet, he has a profound influence upon the plot of the film.<br><br>Fred

I must agree with what Pilgrim said, I believe it is a" nice" way of satan to mislead people

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I don't think it is blasphemous because the second commandment has to do with graven images in the place of worship. </font><hr></blockquote><p> May I ask where you have the idea that graven images MUST BE IN the place of worship?<br><br>I do not need to restate what Pilgrim has already stated. Thus, I will only comment on, [color:red]As long as such a film is done historically, and with reverence to the subject being portrayed, I believe it is fine,</font color=red> and ask how can the depiction of Jesus be historical and reverence when EVEN unsaved people (not that saved should be playing them either...) are playing the parts? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img]

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] We could not have any depection of Christ, or any biblical event, in art form if it is a violation of the 2nd commandment. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Then perhaps we shouldn't. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]<br><br>Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>~Jason<br>

Fred,

My objection is to movies or anything else that depicts any of the three persons of the Godhead. As I read the Second Commandment, there are two related parts which forbid .. 1) Worship which is not warranted by God in the Scriptures, and 2) The making of any representation of God, whether it be for the purpose of worship, admiration, teaching, etc. It does not address "biblical events" but again, the representation and/or worship of the Godhead. Thus movies such as "Ben Hur", "The Ten Commandments", etc., are not violating this Commandment for as you have rightly pointed out, the person of Christ is not represented by an actor. Here are a couple of statements which our forefathers wrote in this regard:

---

[color:blue]The Larger Catechism, Question 109
Q109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?

A109: The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising,[1] counseling,[2] commanding,[3] using,[4] and anywise 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 worshiping 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 pretense 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. Num. 15:39
2. Deut. 13:6-8
3. Hosea 5:11; Micah 6:16
4. I Kings 11:33; 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. I 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. Psa. 106:39
16. Matt. 15:9
17. I Peter 1:18
18. Jer. 44:17
19. Isa. 65:3-5; Gal. 1:13-14
20. I Sam. 13:11-12; 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; I Thess. 2:15-16

---

[color:blue]The Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 35

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

---

I have to ask again: How can a finite human being, one who is tainted with sin, possibly portray the incarnate Son of God without profaning His person and name?

"Should the Lord Jesus appear now to any of us in His majesty and glory, it would not be to our edification nor consolation. For we are not meet nor able, by the power of any light or grace that we have received, or can receive, to bear the immediate appearance and representation of them. His beloved apostle John had leaned on His bosom probably many a time in his life, in the intimate familiarities of love; but when He afterward appeared to him in His glory, "he fell at his feet as dead" (Rev. 1:17). And when He appeared to Paul, all the account he could give thereof was "that he saw a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun"; where-upon he and all that were with him 'fell to the ground' (Acts 26:13,14)." — John Owen "The Glory of Christ" p. 174

In His Grace,

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]May I ask where you have the idea that graven images MUST BE IN the place of worship?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>(Fred) From the context of Exodus, and the various rebukes of following false gods made through out the scripture. The second commandment follows on the heals of the 1st commandment, you shall have no other gods before me - that which is in the place of God. I do not see a play, movie, or painting that depicts some scriptural event, including the life of Christ, as falling into that category. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Thus, I will only comment on, As long as such a film is done historically, and with reverence to the subject being portrayed, I believe it is fine, and ask how can the depiction of Jesus be historical and reverence when EVEN unsaved people (not that saved should be playing them either...) are playing the parts?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>First off, your question is really irrelevant to establish your own position, because if you hold with tenacity such a vehemence against any portrayal of Christ, it wouldn't matter if the actors were OPC, they would be committing blasphemy by participating in a film about Jesus.<br>However, if you come from my perspective, I have no problem with unsaved people acting in a movie about Jesus as long as they do it with reverence. And that is because it is the content of what is being portrayed, or painted, that has the value, not necessarily who does it.<br>Maybe our disagreement is how you define "reverent?" I believe the unsaved can be reverent, and that it is not a word exclusive to the character of born-again Christians. <br><br>Fred

Pilgrim,<br><br>Hmm. Would this apply also to such symbols as the Agnus Dei, which are visual representations of symbolic language regarding Christ? I'm just curious. Were I to guess your answer, I'd guess "yes."

It's yet to be released, although previews of the film have been shown in a limited fashion. You are right that a lot of Jewish groups are upset about it, accusing the film of defaming Jews. Whether this reaction is reasonable is questionable; I doubt many Jews today would read the New Testament and be able to view it as anything other than defamation toward their people.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I do not see a play, movie, or painting that depicts some scriptural event, including the life of Christ, as falling into that category. </font><hr></blockquote><p> So, Hollywood picking a Hollywood "idol" to play the part of the Lord Jesus Christ doesn't bother you? Picking an unredeemed man to play the "part" of your Saviour does not at all trouble you?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I have no problem with unsaved people acting in a movie about Jesus as long as they do it with reverence.</font><hr></blockquote><p> Again, how can UNSAVED people reverence a God they do not even know? Even the secular definition of "reverence" states it is a "profound adoring awed respect," which I do not see a unsaved person capable of giving!

This is the Agnus Dei (Latin for "Lamb of God"):<br><br><br><br>I think, judging by the standards you've cited, it may rightly be called a graven image, as it is a representation of Christ, even if in highly symbolic form.