Hmmm...Just because one film depicts the savagery of those who participated in cruxifying Jesus, people are trying to find ways to discredit the work because it may offend people. I haven't seen the film but read some articles on what it contained.

Well, back to the topic of the 2nd Commandment. Would this apply to manger scenes (displays, Christmas cards, Christmas plays, etc)? How about all the other movies that depict the life of Christ? Angel figurines? I believe arguing over the 2nd Commandment and the movie made some people lose sight over what the 2nd Commandment is all about.

The 2nd Commandment about not making idols for me is something that talks about not making idols to worship (eg the golden calf in Moses' time). Idols come in all sorts of shapes and forms. Some people "worship" money (money is their idol). So, the argument on a movie doesn't make sense to me unless someone is actually worshipping the movie.

I certainly hope that no one is worshipping Mel Gibson's film.
Ed Yong | 02.06.04 - 9:29 am | #

I agree Ed. I posted the link, but I do not endorese the conclusion at all.
David Heddle | Homepage | 02.06.04 - 9:32 am | #

Interestingly, it was not until the very end of the article that I noticed is was written by a very close family friend.

Pastor Gleason draws three conclusions. "First, the Law of God is still relevant and applicable for the New Testament Church. What Yahweh commanded in the Old Testament still applies for the New Testament saints." I agree with this one.

"Second, New Testament Christians are still prohibited from making any image of the deity—even in a movie or in art. The reason is that it is impossible for any artist to depict the godhead or spiritual matters, but more importantly, no matter how necessary or essential we might believe a movie to be, God has said "No." That ought to be more than sufficient for us." I am not sure what I think of this one. It is going to take some more thought. In theory I think I agree, but I often have a tough time discerning what I believe because of how I was raised and what I believe because that's what the Bible says...

"Third, just as the Word, Circumcision, and Passover were sufficient in the Old Testament, so also are the Word, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper sufficient for the New Testament Church." I absolutely agree with this conclusion. This movie is not _necessary_, though it *may* be beneficial.
Tim | Homepage | 02.06.04 - 10:12 am | #

A couple of comments.

On the Reformed understanding of the second commandment. If you look the Heidelberg Catechism Lord's Day 35 (http://www.reformed.org/documents/ heidelberg.html) and The Westminster Larger Catechism Questions 107 to 110 (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wlc_w_proofs/ WLC_091-150.html) you will get a full treatment of why we understand the scriptures to teach that there is to be no image of any of the persons in the Godhead.

On the movie, see James White's blog entry for 2/4/04 as a start to why it will *not* be beneficial. Not to mention the great emphasis on the physical suffering when the scriptures put the emphasis on the Resurrection and his suffering of divine warth for the sins of his people. And the whole unbibical place of Mary in the whole scheme of things.
Bill | 02.06.04 - 10:32 am | #

Remember to take the verse as a whole - heaven, earth, water. Many people see the verse of idol to mean anything that someone could worship. Not limited to spiritual beings. People worship sports figures. People worship entertainment figures. People worship money. People worship cars. People will find an idol of just about anything(golden calf as mentioned before) to substitute for God.

Why the fuss now with Mel Gibson's movie? Even before Mel Gibson's movie there were other movies. Walk into a Christian bookstore and there are pictures and objects to communicate to people who may not be able to communicate through plain text or spoken word.
Ed Yong | 02.06.04 - 10:52 am | #

The Old Testament clearly states that the reason God appeared on the mountaintop as a cloud of smoke and fire is so that people would not worship His image. Essentially, God kept His appearance secret (that is, if a transcendent Being were even to have appearance). When Jesus came, He came in the likeness of a man, and people could behold His image. The incarnation has fundamentally changed our relation to God with respect to the second commandment. In fact, if the Shroud of Turin is genuine (as it appears to be), then we could say that God has preserved Jesus' image for us today. Obviously, we shouldn’t worship the image (I always get extremely uncomfortable in churches where people nod to a statue), but this might be interpreted as a sign of divine approval for manger scenes and movies. Just my $0.02.
Jeffrey L. Whitledge | Homepage | 02.06.04 - 5:06 pm | #

For many people, they think in pictures. When we read words, images form in our minds. Whether there is a physical image (movie, print, or statue) or a mental image (our minds), we have pictures. Pictures help us remember - mental imaging in those memory improvement courses.

Some people take that mental image of what they read and share it with others in their "art" such as Michelangelo's work in the Sistine Chapel from around the 1500's. Take to the present time and we have Mel Gibson's movie.

As long as we don't worship the image (substitute something for God). As mentioned, too many people today substitute their personal "idols" for God. My personal opinion is that is the meaning behind the 2nd Commandment is to not let something substitute for God (eg the golden calf, money, sports hero, entertainer, cars, jets, false gods, trees, rocks, etc).
Ed Yong | 02.06.04 - 5:26 pm | #

I think that there is often an envy in the heart when faced with a great witness for Christ. Whether it is Billy Graham, Promise Keepers, a revival of some sort, Mother Theresa or some other (dare I say) work of God, there will be those who cloak there envy in theolog-ese. Know what I mean.

Actually the commandment says that we can not worship these images. I don't think that Mel Gibson nor anyone suggests we bow to images in the movie. Please be reasonable.
Matt Oskvarek | 02.06.04 - 7:22 pm | #

Matt asks me (I guess) to "Please be reasonable", sorry I'd rather be bibical. (Not that that rules out reason, but reason is secondary to the scriptures, but that is a discussion for another time). Images of God is not a new issue but was addressed at the time of the Reformation. Check out the references above.

"Theology is the doctrine or teaching of living to God." (William Ames) and as such is not opposed to true moves of God, but it is opposed to false moves of God, even popular ones.

I've copied in one of the questions and answers from the Heidelberg Catechism with the scripture proofs that they supply to show the reformed understanding of the use of images of God.

Question 98. But may not images be tolerated in the churches, as books to the laity?

Answer: No: for we must not pretend to be wiser than God, who will have his people taught, not by dumb images, (a) but by the lively preaching of his word. (b)

(a) Jer.10:8 But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities. Hab.2:18 What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols? Hab.2:19 Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach! Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it. (b) Rom.10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? Rom.10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! Rom.10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 2 Pet.1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 2 Tim.3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Tim.3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Bill | 02.06.04 - 10:23 pm | #

Thank you for the response.

However, has Mel Gibson suggested that we bow to the images in the movie?

Matt
Matt | 02.07.04 - 12:29 am | #

Matt, the commandment says not to make and not to bow down. Two different things.
Bill | 02.07.04 - 1:37 am | #

David, thank you for continuing to respond.

As far as I know, you may be right on this. But I tend to think that the command forbids knowingly making something to bow down to. Maybe I am being too loose, but that is what I see.

Thanks for the exchanges,
Matt
Anonymous | 02.07.04 - 11:45 am | #

David, sorry, I just noticed above that you said you don't endorse the conclusions of the article. Sorry to be rambling (perhaps to the choir).

Peace,
Matt
Matt | 02.07.04 - 11:47 am | #

When we read the 2nd Commandment, I see it meaning making an idol for the purposes of worshipping it. Does not specify what kind of a "graven image" for the reader, because people can worship all kinds of things.

If we take the "lawyer talk" too far, then we get into the danger of misrepresenting what the Bible means. Example: We are made in the image of God in Genesis. Does this mean we can't make statues or take pictures of people? Only if those were made for the purpose of getting worshipped such as those "Elvis shrines" that you see from some Elvis fanatics every so often. BTW, Elvis was Christian and didn't want people to worship him, but to worship Jesus.
Ed Yong | 02.09.04 - 9:31 am | #

The "making of graven images" may also refer to the manufacture of idols for sale (not necessarily for the maker's personal worship). Jews who did not worship anyone but YHWH could have made a pretty penny by making graven images and selling them to others (mostly people outside the covenant community).
So I think the prohibition may be a way of "covering all bases," if you know what I mean. Not only is worship of anyone other than the one true God forbidden, but God's children must not enable others to do so by producing other objects of worship.

I personally don't think paintings or films that depict Jesus qualify unless they are produced with the intent to be worshipped. And I personally am not swayed by what the Westminster Catechism says on the subject. I am bound by God's Word, not interpretative traditions (even if I tend to agree with those traditions on other issues).
Jared | Homepage | 02.12.04 - 11:57 am | #

I hear you, Jared, and tend to think as you do on these matters.
Anonymous | 02.12.04 - 4:45 pm | #

The OT people totally didn't need images, which is why there weren't any on top of the Ark of the Covenant.
Josh S | 02.13.04 - 7:46 pm | #

Umm...please read Exodus 25:19-22, there it describes angelic beings called cherubims being made for the Ark of the Covenant. So, there were "graven images" made.

The people worshipped God, not the images anyway. That is the whole point. It's not that statues, pictures, etc, can't be made. It's that people will not worship things that they make.
Ed Yong | 02.13.04 - 11:23 pm | #

Ed, I could be wrong, but I think Josh was being sarcastic. IOW, I think he basically agrees with you.

Josh?
Jared | Homepage | 02.15.04 - 9:06 pm | #

OK, my "funny bone" wasn't in gear to notice the humor until you pointed it out.

Anyway, the movie is coming out this week. Anyone going to go see it? It's incredible that God used all this "talk" (not just on this blog) to get the momemtum going for people hear about the movie and to see the movie. I can't help but wonder that if there was no discussion about the movie, it may have just been an obscure movie.
Ed Yong | 02.16.04 - 9:23 am | #

Hi,
I'm new here, and jumping right in. Although I don't totally agree with the writer of that article, I do think that we can't just disregard the whole idolatry issue. While I do not think that people intend to view this movie and then bow down before the reel, I do think that some (many?) people (namely immature Christians and pseudo-Christians) will sort of "bond" with this movie and the actors in it. Can you imagine if they guy who plays Jesus played an ax-murderer in his next film? What if he starts living with his girlfriend? This could in some warped way give a poor testimony to Christ. You know how they say you should read a book before seeing the movie? I think that some will see this movie, and it will be imprinted upon their hearts/minds more than Scripture. I have another issue with this movie, which I think is much more important than the question of the 2nd Commandment.
There has been an enormous outcry of praise for this film from many notable "evangelicals", not to mention Joe Blow who had the chance to see an early release. I am troubled that Christians are sounding like they need a movie to make the Word of God real to them. In addition, they think that the Word isn't enough to convert unbelievers. What unbelievers really need is a movie where they'll see just how horribly Christ suffered, and then they'll sign up, right? Wrong. What I think you'll get are a lot of "death bed" confessions. I mean people who have responded emotionally from seeing a "realistic depiction" of the crucifixion. Guilt is not an evangelism tool. I do not understand why Christians continue to hope and believe that emotional highs and lows bring people to salvation. I acknowledge that plenty of people do come to saving faith during a crisis situation, but I don't think it's the majority. It reminds me of how everyone thought that Sept. 11 would bring about revival in this country. Has it? Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Romans 10:17) We've got to remember this.
I feel very discouraged by this situation, and the fact that I have yet to see a prominent Christian leader raise any of the above points. I am not a rocket scientist. Why am I one of only a few people who seem to be concerned about this?
It's scary out there!
--Angela
Angela | 02.18.04 - 3:31 pm | #

Angela,

I've been down that road many times with "what if someone does this or that?" It comes down to personal responsibility. I can't put the blame of my actions to another person. For example, if someone in this posting were to make fun of my views and I responded by posting a bunch of cuss words, do I blame the person who made fun of me or am I responsible for posting those cuss words?

The same thought goes behind people being so irresponsible as to make an actor into their idol.

The movie is just a tool. No one suggests the movie alone is what people need. People visualize the words in their minds. The violence of a cruxifixion is known. There are other tools in use to help people get closer to God as in handing out tracks, Christian music (you pick your type), talk shows, conventions, Promise Keepers, other videos, this blog, etc.

If God allows someone to use the media as a tool to reach millions of people, it would be a sin not to make use of that media for His Glory. Why let only the MTV crowd use the media for evil?
Ed Yong | 02.18.04 - 5:36 pm | #

Hi Ed,
Sorry for the delay, I was off on a retreat!
I appreciate your point about the use of media. I agree with that. I think though, that the bigger issue is the fact that the movie is not theologically sound. This movie has been infused with a strong dose of Mariology and other Catholic doctrine. The unfortunate thing is that most Evangelicals don't recognize it. You'd better believe that the Scott Hahn camp of Catholic apologists are just drooling to use this film as a jumping board to try and convert people. And because of the bloody scenes are so graphic, I totally think that some will be roped in. Which comes back to your original question: whose fault is that? Well, yes, it's the fault of the person who lets himself be roped in BUT if I see you getting ready to hang yourself and I just stand there and keep my mouth shut, I'm partially responsible for your death. We as Protestants (especially Reformed, because we're just smarter--I'M KIDDING!)really do need to make it our business to warn people to view this film with caution.
--Angela
Oh! Here's a link to a good article that I read just today. It's from James White's site:
http://www.aomin.org/BressonPassion.html
Angela | 02.23.04 - 12:32 pm | #

Angela,

It's just a movie of a piece of the Gospel highlighting the last 12 hours of Jesus before cruxifixion. I have not seen the film (early screenings like some people) to say whether I like it or not. Have you seen the film to say that it's not theologically sound? I have heard that Billy Graham thought it was a decent film that accurately portrayed what the Gospel has to say. Here is a review by Billy Graham.

BILLY GRAHAM
On Dec. 01 2003 Billy Graham came to the defense Gibson film on Christ, saying he was "moved to tears."

"The film is faithful to the Bible's teaching that we are all responsible for Jesus' death, because we all have sinned," the 85-year-old evangelist said. "It is our sins that caused his death, not any particular group."

Billy Graham also stated: "I doubt if there has been a more graphic and moving presentation of Jesus' death and resurrection, which Christians believe are the most important events in human history."

Where I live, the fundamental independent Baptist school is taking their students to view the movie.

Jesus' last few hours before cruxifixion whether told by Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc, are basically the same - brought before Pilate, sentenced to death by His accusers, Barrabas chosen over Jesus by His accusers, beatings, cruxifixion.

I told someone recently that there will be people who would object to the movie because Mel Gibson is some sort of Catholic (splinter group from the mainstream Catholic). Can we look beyond our own denominational prejudices and what the Gospel says regardless of who reads it?

Look at the other tools such as tracks and Christian music. They are only a small portion of the Gospel to help bring up interest of the Gospel for people to pursue. I don't expect a track or song to contain the entire contents of the Bible, neither should a movie.

You can help people and it's a good thing to help people. But, the other person is still ultimately responsible for their choices in life. There are so many other detractors in life. For example, would you avoid all people because there might be that one person who gets offended at what you might do?
Ed Yong | 02.23.04 - 1:37 pm | #