I have heard some people argue that we should not see the Passion because showing an image of Christ is a violation of the second commandment. Have y'all heard that argument? If so, what do you think of it?
0 Kudo
The Passion
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Andy Van Slyke Fan
|
The Passion |
Lead | ||
|
Posts: 85 02/22/04 22:48:03 |
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
smoothak |
Re: The Passion | #1 | ||
|
Posts: 84 02/23/04 00:28:08 |
I have heard such argument, but I believe that it is invalid. I believe that the second commandment deals with images of God the Father, not God the Son, as far as saying absolutely that we can not make an image. It is impossible to have an image of God, and any image of God would limit him. However, God the Son did exist as someone of which we are able to make an image without limiting His being. We must remember that this is not Jesus, and that we do not worship the Mel Gibson Jesus. Making a carving or such an image of Jesus, I do not necessarily feel is wrong, but it is so easy to fall into the trap of making it an idol that I am against it. But, it is far more difficult to make a character in a movie an idol than something you can stick on your desk and pray towards.
-Dave
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
rodkirby |
Re: The Passion | #2 | ||
|
Posts: 485 02/23/04 08:48:45 |
Look at the 2nd commandment again: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image OF ANYTHING THAT IS IN HEAVEN ABOVE, OR IN THE EARTH BENEATH, OR IN THE WATER UNDER THE EARTH." Just going by that, we are forbidden to have images (pictures) of anything at all. The 2nd commandment is not limited to the Godhead. You can't take a picture of your children and hang it up in your living room. You can't have a Thomas Kinkade picture in your den. You can't paint a picture of a beautiful sunset. All are forbidden by the 2nd commandment. But...
...go to the next clause: "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them." Aha. The focus of the 2nd commandment is not on images; it is on WORSHIP of those images. If we are not worshipping those images, or using them as an improper aid to worship, images of any kind are not invalid. If we say the 2nd comm. forbids all pictures of Jesus, whether used in worship or not, then we have to say it forbids all pictures of everything, whether used in worship or not. If we qualify that by saying the 2nd comm. only forbids the use of pictures in worship, then we have to say it only forbids the use of pictures of Jesus in worship, and does not forbid other uses (flannelgraph pictures in children's Sunday School classes, for example). As Dave mentioned, Jesus was a real human. If cameras had been invented then, Peter could have taken a picture of Him, and the image would not have been clouded, there would not have been a hole in the picture where Jesus was, etc. He was really, physically there. No man has seen the Father, and so images of the Father would be invalid. However, God has given us images of Himself -- most significantly, the Lord Jesus. However, man himself is also an image of God. There are symbols throughout Scripture which portray various characteristics of God (the rainbow, the pillar of cloud and fire, Ezekiel's chariot, etc.). There would be nothing wrong with having pictures which represent God by these symbols; God Himself ordained them. The tabernacle itself had images in it -- palm trees, etc. So the question re: "Passion" is this: do you worship the image of Christ on the screen? I have read of people bowing down to the actor who portrayed Christ. That is a violation of the 2nd commandment. However, just having pictures of Jesus, or portraying Him in a movie, is not per se a violation. Rod Kirby, Ph.D.
Dominion Christian High School Marietta, GA dominionchristian.org |
|||
|
|
||||
|
ramclaughlin |
I recently did a Q&A on this | #3 | ||
|
Posts: 1455 02/23/04 15:50:31 |
Here's the link: Images of Christ
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
TheIronHare |
Re: I recently did a Q&A on this | #4 | ||
|
Posts: 65 02/23/04 17:52:27 Guest |
I appreciate the Q&A. Makes me glad I kept my yapper shut on the subject until now!
 Ra wrote: "And of course, we are not to worship any image, including one of flesh and blood, unless of course that image happens to be God incarnate (2 Cor. 4:4; Heb. 1:3), and not just a portrayal of him." Now I wonder whether or not one might end up informally worshipping while looking at, and using as a means of worship, an image of Christ. Given as powerful a portrayal as is widely reported to be in TPOfTChrist it would seem to be almost an involuntary reaction for many IYKWIM. Now, I could see a person saying "I'm not worshipping the image itself!" while making sure to keep his eyes glued to it! Would Aaron have been wrong to look at the golden calf as a means to heighten his concentration in terms of worhipping YHWH as long as it wasn't during a formal worhip service (between bites of manna popcorn perhaps)? I'm talking about before Moses came down from the mountain and, say, prior to the wild "festival unto YHWH" getting under way. I imagine you wouldn't want a statue of Jesus as part of the formal worship in your church but if the same statue was in the pastor's house and you saw him gazing at it with a reverant expression...? It would be one thing to look at a starry sky and think of their Maker. I do that. He could look at his wife (a being made in the image of God) and think reverantly about her maker...I'm trying to sort this stuff out. I'm just still feeling a little queasy. The pillar of fire was a sign of God's presence not an image of God. I distrust our idol factory hearts. - Dennis the Poetic Iron Hoppy Critter
"...Shepherd, save me from the wolves within/I love Your Law yet I'm drawn to sin..." - DWC |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Goldberry of Withywindle |
But the fact that we might sinfully misuse something.... | #5 | ||
|
Posts: 432 02/23/04 18:13:27 |
does not in itself answer the question of whether the thing can lawfully exist, right?
IOW, I'm not sure there's something magical about an image of Christ that makes us more prone to worship it, than we are to worship flat, greenish pictures of Andy Jackson -- yet nobody wants to outlaw 20's for that reason.  ~Jane, a Bonsai Ent
Words couldn't express it. They wouldn't express it; they'd mutiny first and become babble. -- James Blaylock, The Last Coin |
|||
|
|
||||
|
rodkirby |
Re: But the fact that we might sinfully misuse something.... | #6 | ||
|
Posts: 485 02/24/04 09:06:44 |
On the other hand, there does seem to be a powerful attraction to images. The sinful human heart seems to be prone to idolatry of images, more so than of ideas (for example). Thus, the 2nd commandment should cause us to be cautious in the use of images. For example, I would have no problem, in the abstract, with a stained-glass picture of Jesus feeding lambs in the sanctuary, as long as it was not front-center as a focal point of worship. However, knowing the weakness and sinfulness of the human heart, and its tendency to idolize images, it may be unwise to have such a picture in the sanctuary at all.
So while I don't believe the 2nd commandment would forbid pictures of Jesus (or movies), I do think it teaches us to be cautious about their use, and to realize that we may very easily fall into idolatry. Rod Kirby, Ph.D.
Dominion Christian High School Marietta, GA dominionchristian.org |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Daron Lawing |
Ra you're wrong on this one... | #7 | ||
|
Posts: 74 02/24/04 11:07:10 |
there's more to this than a "violation of the second commandment" I personally wouldn't say it's "unlawful" to go see the movie however perhaps it is "unprofitable" Check out the link below for some reasoning on this issue:
www.providencepca.com/ess...ssion.html |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Goldberry of Withywindle |
That's why... | #8 | ||
|
Posts: 432 02/24/04 11:07:43 |
I chose the analogy of money.
The sinful human heart is very prone to the love of money, etc. Everything you said about images applies to money. That's why I totally agree with you that this is a serious issue to be approached with the greatest caution. My point was only that a thing that is fraught with temptation is still not necessarily an unlawful thing for that reason. ~Jane, a Bonsai Ent
Words couldn't express it. They wouldn't express it; they'd mutiny first and become babble. -- James Blaylock, The Last Coin |
|||
|
|
||||
|
ramclaughlin |
Huh? | #9 | ||
|
Posts: 1455 02/24/04 13:00:04 |
My point was that seeing the movie is not a form of idolatry and not a violation of the second commandment. Webb's article does not successfully refute that point. Besides, I never endorsed the movie. I just said that it is not idolatrous to portray Christ in a movie. If you personally would not say that it is unlawful to see the movie, then don't we agree?
Incidentally, I had already read that article, and I think it makes some interesting points. Nevertheless, I was not persuaded that Webb provided any good ground for me to avoid seeing it. I still plan to go to it. His main objection (first three points) is that the story is presented with a Roman slant. That's not a big deal to me. I am not in the least inclined to become a Roman Catholic, and seeing a movie will not change that. His fourth point is just plain silly, in my opinion. So far as I know, no one has suggested that movies should replace preaching. And if someone has suggested it, it certainly is not the mainstream view, and certainly people who see the film will not respond by rejecting preaching in favor of movies. A case might also be made that some movies constitute preaching (like videos of sermons, etc.). His fifth objection ("Every visual representation of Jesus is inevitably a lie" and a violation of the second commandment) is invalid because the things he warns of do not constitute idolatry/lies. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Goldberry of Withywindle |
On that final objection. | #10 | ||
|
Posts: 432 02/24/04 13:18:29 |
This is one I have heard raised often, and it sounds good on the surface.
However, if "lie" leading to "idolatry" is defined as "inadequate representation" or "truth mixed with human error," isn't all preaching also an idolatrous lie? No sermon has ever presented Christ in all His fullness, even all of Him that has been revealed to us, and every preacher who ever lived has detracted from the truth of his message in some small (or large) way due to his human inadequacy and sinfulness. At best, it's circular -- if all visual representation of Christ is idolatrous, then of course all representation of Christ will be idolatrous for some specific reason -- and by golly, here's the reason! Which proves it's idolatrous! It strikes me that it's an invalid premise to call human inadequacy in portraying the Divine "idolatrous" or a "lie" here, because such definitions of lie and idolatrous cannot be applied across the board. Can anyone explain to me why it is not so? ~Jane, a Bonsai Ent
Words couldn't express it. They wouldn't express it; they'd mutiny first and become babble. -- James Blaylock, The Last Coin |
|||
|
|
||||
