The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Gibson Jesus movie

To be honest, I think that this symbol could be considered either way, according to Romans 14. The image, in and of itself, is certainly not a depiction of the man Christ Jesus. Thus, I believe it would not come under the prohibition of the Second Commandment. However.... depending upon the individual, it could be an "idol", that is if the person deemed it as a depiction/representation of Christ and/or used it for the purposes of aiding in worship, teaching and/or veneration. Can you grasp the principle here? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]

In His Grace,

I agree.<br>I was thinking about this after a year or so ago while attending an easter program at the Church my wife and I used to attend. They tried so hard to put on a "show" for the people to see 'Jesus'. I think they meant well, but a lot of it was just ego. I felt very uncomfortable there and decided it was time to find a Reformed Church.<br>Most of the people really don't know any better because they were never taught. I had to relearn a lot of things about worship I never knew before and am still learning. The funniest thing about the play the Church had put on was the fact that the 'Jesus' character had a real deep southern drawl if you know what I mean. During the part while he was on the cross I had half way expected him to say, "it's finished, y'all' "<br>[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/drop.gif" alt="drop" title="drop[/img]<br>I mean no disrespect to our Lord, just find it amusing how they expect ordinary men to portray Him.<br><br>God<br>bless

I have not seen the film but I'm aware of its content . It's just more popery (as far as I am concerned).<br><br>howard

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>(Fred) This may shock and trouble you Joe, but No, it doesn't, particularly in the instance of Gibson's film, because the guy is not an "idol." Like I said, as long as it is done with reverence, and I believe unbelievers can be reverent, I believe it is not violating the 2nd commandments. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Again, how can UNSAVED people reverence a God they do not even know? Even the secular definition of "reverence" states is is a "profound adoring awed respect," which I do not see a unsaved person capable of giving!</font><hr></blockquote><p> <br><br>(Fred) I guess because I don't have such a rigid understanding of "reverence." You seem to be equating the word's definition with that of worship. I don't see the equation. The definition of the word "reverence" is broad enough in my mind to accomodate a person doing something with respect and good taste. The portrayal of Jesus in a movie falls in that category in my mind. <br><br>Fred

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree for I see no way for an unregenerate man to keep the 2nd commandment, millions will flock to this movie to to see a PICTURE (image or likeness) of Jesus, and to see their Hollywood idol, Mel Gibson, and even if I grant you the use of the term of "reverence," as a GOOD INTENT, it is violating the second commandment--see below!! Thus, my rule of life will continue to be the Scripture and not Hollywood's blasphemy:<br><br><blockquote>Exodus 20:4-5 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.Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;<br><br>Deuteronomy 5:-9 Thou shalt not make 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 waters beneath the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,</blockquote> The Larger Catechism states:<br><br><blockquote>The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, [color:red]all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and <span style="background-color:yellow;">anywise approving</span>,</font color=red> any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; [color:red]the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, <span style="background-color:yellow;">either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever</span></font color=red>; all worshiping 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 [color:red]under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, <span style="background-color:yellow;">good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever</span></font color=red>; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.</blockquote>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I guess we will just have to agree to disagree for I see no way for an unregenerate man to keep the 2nd commandment</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I didn't think our discussion centered around whether or not an unregenerate man could keep the 2nd commandment, but rather, could an unregenerate person respectfully act in a film depicting the earthly life of Jesus Christ. <br><br>Over all, I guess we will have to disagree. Personally, I see it as a misapplication of the 2nd commandment, because I do not think it is the least bit relevant in this case. I appreciate the quotations from the WCF and the Heidlberg Confessions, but honestly, I think they go a little too far in applying the second commandment in the manner they do. More than likely, the historical dissention from Roman Catholicism and all of their veneration of saints, icons and popery, is the reason these two confessions apply the 2nd command so broadly, that its application misses the true intent of what the 2nd commandment is stating. Though I respect their intentions, and their desire to protect the character of God, I believe they are adding to the law in their zeal. Compare the simple rendering given in Exodus and Deuteronomy, to how the framers of the WCF go beyond what God told Moses. Note further that God's issue is the "bowing down" to the image in worship. The WCF, like I stated, seems to have a beef (and rightly so) with the RCC they were fighting against at the time. In that instance, the images were there (and are still there) for the purposes of worship.<br><br>I will more than likely be one of the "millions" who catches this movie when it is released, but I have no intentions of worshipping the image of Jesus as portrayed in a film, nor do I think it is dishonoring (it most certainly isn't blasphemy) to the Lord as long a Mel is keeping with the biblical texts of Matthew and John, as he claims he is doing. <br><br>Fred

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I didn't think our discussion centered around whether or not an unregenerate man could keep the 2nd commandment, but rather, could an unregenerate person respectfully act in a film depicting the earthly life of Jesus Christ.</font><hr></blockquote><p> Fredman if he can't keep the 2nd Commandment then he can not fully and truly respect God? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/drop.gif" alt="drop" title="drop[/img] Even the elect cannot fully do this and thus it would be sin for them as well! <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I appreciate the quotations from the WCF and the Heidlberg Confessions, but honestly, I think they go a little too far in applying the second commandment in the manner they do. ...Though I respect their intentions, and their desire to protect the character of God, I believe they are adding to the law in their zeal. Compare the simple rendering given in Exodus and Deuteronomy, to how the framers of the WCF go beyond what God told Moses. Note further that God's issue is the "bowing down" to the image in worship.</font><hr></blockquote><p> Where did you get the idea that the WCF or the HC used only 2 verses to support their statements? Here are some others that Pilgrim already provided:<br><br>1. Num. 15:39<br>2. Deut. 13:6-8<br>3. Hosea 5:11; Micah 6:16<br>4. I Kings 11:33; 12:33<br>5. Deut. 12:30-32<br>6. Deut. 13:6-12; Zech. 13:2-3; Rev. 2:2, 14-15, 20, Rev. 17:12, 16-17<br>7. Deut. 4:15-19; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:21-23, 25<br>8. Dan. 3:18; Gal. 4:8<br>9. Exod. 32:5<br>10. Exod. 32:8<br>11. I Kings 18:26, 28; Isa. 65:11<br>12. Acts 17:22; Col. 2:21-23<br>13. Mal. 1:7-8, 14<br>14. Deut. 4:2<br>15. Psa. 106:39<br>16. Matt. 15:9<br>17. I Peter 1:18<br>18. Jer. 44:17<br>19. Isa. 65:3-5; Gal. 1:13-14<br>20. I Sam. 13:11-12; 15:21<br>21. Acts 8:18<br>22. Rom. 2:22; Mal. 3:8<br>23. Exod. 4:24-26<br>24. Matt. 22:5; Mal. 1:7, 13<br>25. Matt. 23:13<br>26. Acts 13:44-45; I Thess. 2:15-16<br><br>Following Calvin and the Reformed tradition, Puritan exegesis insists that the first commandment fixes Jehovah alone as the object of worship. The second establishes the proper means of worship. Consequently, the prohibition of idols applies both to images of other gods and to images of the true God. Images of the Lord are rejected because they obscure the spirituality, sovereignty, and glory of God. They also minimize the value of his word.<br><br>The kinds of images rejected by Puritan exegetes are summarized by James Durham:<br><br><ul>1. We simply condemn any delineating of God, or the Godhead, or Trinity; such as some have upon their buildings, or books, like a sun shining with beams, and the Lord’s name, Jehovah, in it or any other way….<br><br>2. All representing of the persons as distinct, as to set out the Father (personally considered) by the image of an old man, as if he were a creature, the Son under the image of a lamb or young man, the Holy Ghost under the image of a dove, all which wrongeth the Godhead exceedingly.[/LIST]Durham’s list is given in almost the same words by Thomas Boston, and elements of it appear in other works. The list suggests at least two particularly significant applications of the second commandment in Puritan thought: (1) to Christ; (2) to types and symbols. In addition, another must be added, (3) to mental images.<br><br>Although images are forbidden in the OT, it might be argued that they are now acceptable because of the incarnation. Surely now that the Lord has taken on a body, his human form may be pictured. As plausible as this argument seems, it is consistently rejected by the Puritans. Because the point is so important, it bears some repetition. Thomas Boston said:<br><br><ul>1. 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, [color:red]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</font color=red>, and so a palpable breach of the second commandment.<br><br>2. And if it be said man’s soul cannot be painted, but his body may, and yet that picture representeth a man; I answer, it cloth so, because he has but one nature, and what representeth that representeth the person; but it is not so with Christ: his Godhead is not a distinct part of the human nature, as the soul of man is (which is necessarily supposed in every living man), but a distinct nature, only united with the manhood in that one person, Christ, who has no fellow; therefore what representeth him must not represent a man only, but must represent Christ, Immanuel, God-man, otherwise it is not his image. Beside, there is no warrant for representing him in his manhood; nor any colourable possibility of it, but as men fancy; and shall that be called Christ’s portraiture? would that be called any other man’s portraiture which were drawn at men’s pleasure, without regard to the pattern? Again, there is no use of it; for either that image behoved to have but common estimation with other images, and that would wrong Christ, or a peculiar respect and reverence, and so it sinneth against this commandment that forbiddeth all religious reverence to images, but he being God and so the object of worship, we must either divide his natures, or say, that image or picture representeth not Christ.[/LIST]It is noteworthy that Scripture condemns “an image made like to corruptible man” along with other kinds of images (Rom 1:23), and that the apostle makes no mention of a change in principle based on the incarnation. As a matter of fact, images would appear to be a gross form of the fleshly estimation of Christ rejected elsewhere by Paul (2 Cor 5:16). Paul’s attitude parallels the utter disregard for Christ’s physical appearance which is evident in the Gospels and which continues on into the early church. Calvin notes that images in churches are rejected by the Council of Elvira in Spain (ca. AD 305), by Augustine, and in general during the first five hundred years of the Christian era.<br><br>Thus, theological, Scriptural, and historical considerations are presented by Reformed authors as evidence that pictures of Christ are idolatrous.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Fredman if he can't keep the 2nd Commandment then he can not fully and truly respect God? Even the elect cannot fully do this and thus it would be sin for them as well!</font><hr></blockquote><p> <br><br>(Fred) Joe, I am sorry, but I just believe you are mixing two things that are non-related. You should be happy to have your convictions about your take on the 2nd commandment, I just don't see it.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Where did you get the idea that the WCF or the HC used only 2 verses to support their statements? Here are some others</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I never said that; those are your words. I just pointed out the two main references for the 10 commandments, and the two confession's comments upon them. Even with the other references you supply, a cursory reading of these passages reveal that they have no bearing to what we have discussed, unless you wish to bring to bear upon the text personal opinions about religious film. Moreover, to be honest with you Joe, a lot of these passage are taken out of context. I will say that many of them do have a rebuke about false worship and following false gods, but that is a far cry from making a movie about Christ's miracles, or attending a passion play at a local Church during easter. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Thus, theological, Scriptural, and historical considerations are presented by Reformed authors as evidence that pictures of Christ are idolatrous.</font><hr></blockquote><p> <br><br>I believe the operative word in this statement is Reformed authors. Now don't get me wrong, I love the dear precious writings of the Puritan reformers, but let us be honest with the facts of history: they had an historical issue with Roman Catholicism and the Anglican Church. Hence, I take their severe comments in stride and in the historical context in which they were made. <br>You make an honorable plea for rejecting religious films about Christ, but it doesn't wash with me. I do not see that a reputable film about Christ's life (a real, flesh and blood historical figure, by the way) in any way violates the 2nd commandment. In this matter, I believe the Bible would allow such things to be opened to the discernment of each individual's conscience, per Romans 14. <br><br>Fred

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I believe the operative word in this statement is Reformed authors. Now don't get me wrong, I love the dear precious writings of the Puritan reformers, but let us be honest with the facts of history: they had an historical issue with Roman Catholicism and the Anglican Church. Hence, I take their severe comments in stride and in the historical context in which they were made. </font><hr></blockquote><p> Well Hollywood was not around then to my knowledge and thus it would have been difficult to write a “statement” directly against them—though I do believe they wisely worded the WCF and a cursory reading of it simply dispels going to see such movies. The WCF is a small systematic and used greatly in apologetics not only against the RCs, but several other heresies and blasphemies that have attacked the Church—i.e. other denominations. Again as Thomas Boston said:<br><br><blockquote>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.</blockquote><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] I do not see that a reputable film about Christ's life (a real, flesh and blood historical figure, by the way) in any way violates the 2nd commandment. In this matter, I believe the Bible would allow such things to be opened to the discernment of each individual's conscience, per Romans 14.</font><hr></blockquote><p> Where in Romans 14 does it say we may break the 10 commandments, according to our conscious? I believe 1st we should present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is our reasonable service. and be not conformed to this world: but be transformed by the renewing of our minds, that we may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God--Rom 12:1-2, which came before Rom 14, and assists us in a proper understanding of Rom 14!<br><br>This will be my last reply. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/hello.gif" alt="hello" title="hello[/img]

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I am surprised that you believe Hollywood to be more holy than the RCs though—in my book it is not an either or choice, I still have the word of God!</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I have the word of God too, and I do not believe that the second command applies in the instance of a movie about Jesus (pre-glorification).<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]And again as Thomas Boston said: etc....</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>That is the problem: Thomas Boston is saying it. In other words, Thomas Boston is offering up a Reformed interpretation of what he thinks the 2nd commandment is to apply to. I would also add that Boston is arguing about images that depict Christ in his glorified state now, and I would further disagree with him, because I believe a solid movie about Jesus would stir up devotion in my heart; not to worship the image of Christ portrayed by an actor, but what I know the scriptures say about Jesus that have been acurately depicted in a movie. Thus, Boston is wrong in my estimation, because my devotion is not vain. It has stirred my heart to worship the true and living Christ. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Where in Romans 14 does it say we may break the 10 commandments, according to our conscious? I believe 1st we should present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is our reasonable service. and be not conformed to this world: but be transformed by the renewing of our minds, that we may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God--Rom 12:1-2, which came before Rom 14! </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>It doesn't say we can break the 10 commandments. However, it does say that I can reject a person's particular interpretative application of the 10 commandments. I believe that is what I am doing, because I am not compelled to believe you are applying properly the 2nd commandment in this case. And because I am not compelled to believe you are applying it properly, I will not be persuaded to your interpretation, so I think we have haggled back and forth about this well enough. If you wish to have a final word, you may do so.<br><br>Fred<br><br>

I hesitate to get into this, but though my leanings are to what Joe said concerning this issue. I do not see this issue as black and white, though I believe Scripture is objective in nature, there are times that we need to just go with what our consciences say on an issue, until we can honestly say dogmatically they know the Scripture stand on the issue.<br>My conscience tells me to error on the side of caution on this issue, therefore I will not be watching Gibson's movie.<br><br>Tom

Fred , you are quite right when you say the Puritans had an historical issue with the RC's.<br><br>But you are quite wrong when you take their (puritans) severe comments in stride and in the historical context in which they were made.<br><br>What is the difference between Rome then and Rome today ? - NOTHING !<br><br>We should be continuing the fight Luther and the reformers began . Anything less is not Protestant. <br><br>howard

Howard<br><br>I hare your concern about the movie; however I see no indication of popery in the write ups that I have read.<br>It sounds like Gibson tried to keeps as much as possible to the Biblical narrative as possible.<br>My main concern is that it breaks the 2nd commandment.<br><br>Where do you see this "popery"?<br><br>Tom

Gibson is a Roman Catholic and also the executive producer .<br><br>howard

Howard,<br>I never said there was difference between Rome yesterday and Rome today. I would agree with the Reformers then, as well as now, that the RCC in practice of the veneration of saints and icons is violating the second commandment, because those things are used in worship. <br>My contention is with the application of the second commandment in the area of a movie about Jesus. As I was discussing with Joe, I do not believe it has any bearing on such a movie, because attending a movie that dramatizes the gospels and the life of Christ, is not worshipping an image. That is a misappied inference based upon a strained exegesis of the 2nd commandment in my opinion, one that is not supported by the Bible in any fashion. <br><br>Fred<br>