The greatest, but by no means only, objection to The Passion of the Christ rests upon its breaking of the 2nd commandment.
Exodus 20: 4 and Deuteronomy 5: 8 read like this:
The question in the minds of many Christians, however, is what the teaching of this commandment actually means. Some have argued that the creation of images, statues and other objects representing the One True God or even other gods is not forbidden here – what is prohibited is only their worship.
Such a suggestion falls woefully short of the scope of this verse. Here and elsewhere God commands that we refrain from picturing him in any form.
It is plain that the direct worship of images and statues is prohibited by God throughout the whole of the Scriptures – for Christian believers, that is not a negotiable matter. Warnings, scorn and curses are repeatedly poured upon both the images and those who worship them.
The scope of this commandment is twofold, however. It forbids both the representation of God by images and idols, and also his replacement by them. I intend to give no space here to a refutation of idols as objects of worship, and therefore replacements of the invisible God, but would like to consider the former issue.
Representation of God
The second commandment not only forbids the 'worship' of such images and likenesses - it forbids the very 'making' of them. It does not forbid sculpture or painting as art forms, as some have suggested – it does, however, prohibit the creation of sculpture, painting or visual arts that seek to depict or represent God, whether we worship them or not.
God himself explains exactly what images we must not make in Deuteronomy 4: 15 –
There is no room for manoeuvre in this verse – no images of any sort are to be made, irrespective of whether it is wood, gold, plastic or celluloid that frames them.
Nowhere in the whole of the Scriptures did the people of God make images depicting God and gain his approval. Not once.
It is true that five chapters after the initial giving of the commandments the Lord instructs Moses to make three-dimensional images of the cherubim from hammered gold (Exodus 25:17-19). These were to be placed inside the holiest place in the tabernacle, the physical centre of Israel's worship.
Cherubim were carved on the golden interior walls of the Holy Place in the Temple (1 Kings 6: 29), and the faces of the cherubim decorated the ‘water chariots’ outside in the courtyard (1 Kings 7: 28ff).
Earthly objects were also carved in the very place of worship itself in order to represent and depict elements and aspects of heavenly realities – types to be interpreted for the instruction of the people of God. Pomegranates on the walls of the tabernacle and the Temple (1 Kings 6: 29), 12 oxen holding up the brazen sea (1 Kings 7: 23 – 25), a lampstand with bowls carved to look like almond blossoms (Exodus 25: 33).
There may be depictions of heavenly things and heavenly realities throughout the tabernacle - the mercy seat, angels, etc etc – but it is significant to observe that there are no depictions of deity anywhere present.
He is without visual representation.
The advent of the New Testament and the Church of Christ brought no change in thinking. It is a well-documented fact that for the first four centuries of its existence the church did not use images even of the Incarnate Jesus as an aid to evangelism. This was despite the fact that they were bringing the gospel to highly visual cultures that had always used imagery to convey religious ideas. They were aware that Acts 17: 29 says, "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill." In the face of false images and idols they refrained from attempting to capture anything of the essence of God in man-made artistry.
The initial movements towards making pictures of Christ were strongly opposed, and the practice was formally condemned by the church as late as 753 AD. Unfortunately, once they had taken hold of the public imagination, the practice of making visible representations of Christ proved difficult if not impossible to eradicate, and gradually pictures and dramatic representations of Jesus became quite commonplace in the church.
At the time of the Reformation, Protestants overwhelmingly rejected the practice of making images of Jesus as a clear violation of the Second Commandment. The significance of the fact that the New Testament is silent as to the physical characteristics of the Son of God was not lost upon them. They also rejected the notion that such images had a necessary role as "textbooks for the laity".
This interpretation has been the uniform mainstream Protestant and Reformed interpretation of this commandment right up until this last century. Only Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy and occasional scattered heretics have taught otherwise.
Let me give you some typical examples.
“The Lord, however, not only forbids any image of himself to be erected by a statuary, but to be formed by any artist whatever, because every such image is sinful and insulting to his majesty… visible shapes made for the purpose of representing him are false and wicked fictions… We think it unlawful to give a visible shape to God, because God himself has forbidden it, and because it cannot be done without, in some degree, tarnishing his glory. And lest any should think that we are singular in this opinion, those acquainted with the productions of sound divines will find that they have always disapproved of it.”
Calvin’s Institutes Book 1 Chapter 11.
“Under this article of religious imagery is forbidden… the making any outward representation of God by any image… It is abominable imagery, and highly injurious to the great God, to represent him in any manner of way. Such abominations are the representing of God by a sun shining with beams, with the name JEHOVAH in it or over it, as in several bibles; the representing of the Father by an image of an old man, the Son by that of a lamb or a young man; or the Father by a large shining sun, the Son by a lesser sun shining, and the Holy Ghost by a dove, as in some great Bibles from England.”
Thomas Boston, Complete Works Volume 2, P151
The Westminster Larger Catechism puts it quite bluntly in question 109.
What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; 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; 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 under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.
The Heidelberg Catechism expresses the same idea:
"God cannot and should not be pictured in any way. As for creatures, although they may indeed be portrayed, God forbids making or having any likeness of them in order to worship them, or to use them to serve him" (A. 97).
Moreover, in response to Q. 98, which asks if pictures might be tolerated in place of books for the unlearned, this catechism states:
"No, for we must not try to be wiser than God who does not want his people to be taught by means of lifeless idols, but through the living preaching of his Word."
In other words, the use of pictures of Christ in art or education are also forbidden.
Only the limitation of space prevents the inclusion of countless other similar quotations from our theological forbears. I include only one from our own days:
Stuart Olyott, Pastoral Director of the Evangelical Movement of Wales:
“I think words really do fail to express the disgust that must surely be ours when someone portrays or seeks to portray the Lord Jesus Christ. If anyone seeks to portray him, he is certain to misrepresent him. Such a portrayal is at the least idolatry, and at the worst is blasphemy. I wonder how any Christ-loving sinner who knows that at this moment in glory all the angels of God worship him, can tolerate the sight of another sinner masquerading as the Lord of Glory. That is a monstrous charade. Our great need is for Christ to be present by his Spirit through the Word. Our great need is not for someone to dress up in his clothes”.
The only wise God has gone to great lengths not to leave us with any physical description of the physical appearance of His Son lest we fall into the sin of image making.
The fact that we have any concept of what Jesus looks like and that Gibson's Jesus looks like the traditional Jesus, is a testament to the abiding impact of past iconography. The Jesus of the Passion is an industry standard that is rooted in Catholic thought. We have no data whatsoever to help us make a pictorial representation of Jesus - we have no descriptions of his physical features, which would enable even the most accomplished artist to make an approximate portrait.
No visual representations of Jesus can ever hope to represent the glory of Christ in His true nature. The best an image of Jesus can do is to represent him as a man, and while Jesus was truly a man, he was not merely a man. Jesus was also God, and no artist or filmmaker who has ever lived could hope to create an image that captures the true Glory of Jesus as God. While this may not appear to be a problem to us, the separation of Christ's manhood from his deity is actually a grave heresy called Nestorianism. We must not therefore attempt to separate what God has forever joined together. If we cannot depict the one, we must not seek to depict the other.
Images and Idols as Helpful Focus
It is sad to say that there are now those claiming to be part of the evangelical mainstream who, while rejecting icons and images as actual objects of worship, are prepared to consider them as harmless focal points helping us to understand greater invisible realities. This is no more than Roman Catholicism teaches.
In particular reference to The Passion of the Christ, the suggestion is that an onscreen portrayal of Christ’s last 12 hours before his death can be helpful to point people to the event of the atonement. Again, and with respect, this is merely a recasting of Medieval Mystery Plays into cinematic vernacular. It is the superstition of Rome writ large.
Christian people, who from respect and honour of God have shunned Sunday School drawings of Jesus, are suddenly purchasing cinema tickets.
Why is it so wrong to use supports or tools to help us see eternal realities more clearly? Well, aside from the prohibition already described, it is the intention of God to protect both our hearts, and his glory.
The use of images, icons or idols present to us the same problem as Moses’ Brass Serpent (2 Kings 18: 4) or Gideon’s ephod (Judges 8: 24 – 35). The human heart is so depraved that it accords to them – unconsciously at first, perhaps - a significance that they were never intended to have. The reverence we are to have for God is deflected elsewhere, and his glory is diminished.
Again in the words of Thomas Boston:
“ …there is a special proneness in the nature of man to corrupt the worship and ordinances of God… There is a peculiar bias in corrupt nature to idolatry. It is natural for men to desire to see what they worship”. P128
“If it be a sin in itself to make them, how can they be innocent that keep them? Deuteronomy 7: 5. It is a strange inconsistency in some to pretend to abhor images, and yet themselves will keep them. They may be a snare to others, and therefore should be removed, blotted out or torn out of books if in them. For their very being is an injury to the great, invisible, and incomprehensible majesty”. P151
Thomas Boston (Complete Works Volume 2)
Of course, those intending to see The Passion of the Christ have no desire to literally bow down in worship before James Caviezel, the actor portraying Jesus, but there is an issue of imagination that is potentially problematic. Billy Graham has already stated that he will always have the Passion crucifixion scene in his mind when he preaches in future. If such a respected figure now has that image in his mind, how many others will feel the same? How many evangelical believers will sit in quiet reflection at the Lord’s Table with Gibson’s Christ, however fleetingly, in their minds?
We are all aware of the influence exerted on the mind and heart by pictures or films. They are powerful media of communication. It is futile, therefore, to deny the influence exerted upon mind and heart by a picture of Christ – particularly the moving, gritty, emotion-laden images of Christ painted by experienced Hollywood craftsmen. A mental picture and association is built up whereby the actor and the Saviour become intertwined.
I prefer my Jesus as he was meant to be – grasped by faith.
Conclusion
Whatever your appreciation of the exposure of Christian themes to the media, or the opportunities produced for the raising of religious issues in the workplace or community, the fact that the 2nd commandment is broken so foundationally should raise concerns among serious Christians.
We must not be so narrow in our understanding of the sovereignty of God as to suggest that nobody will be converted through attending a showing of this film. The fact that conversions take place is because God is gracious in spite of our sin - that ‘success’ must not be seen as divine approval. God may use this film in his saving purposes. Should we therefore promote it because God has been pleased to use it? Thinking of that sort is very dubious. God was pleased to use a verse from the Apocrypha in the salvation of John Bunyan – should we therefore elevate the Apocrypha to a place of prominence in our churches? God’s work must be done with God’s means.
Evangelicals flocking to The Passion shouldn't be that surprising. These are, after all, the same people who bought WWJD bracelets, and millions of copies of books such as The Prayer of Jabez and the Left Behind series.
Already Christian people can attend conferences such as this year’s Word Alive Conference and purchase fully-posable action figures of Jesus or Passion-nails on a chain from Borders Books. Already the relic-mentality of Rome is infiltrating the evangelical church.
By all means, go and see the Passion – but in doing so, recognise that you are out of fellowship with the historic Christian church. You draw your lines and stand your ground alongside Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. You are out of step with the Puritans, the Continental and British Reformers, and the whole history of evangelicalism defined and developed during the Great Awakening under the Wesleys, Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards.
It is my conviction that if we return to the use of imagery and begin endorsing movies like The Passion of the Christ, we will be returning to the very state of affairs the first Protestants struggled and died to reform. We must not think that merely endorsing one form of visible representation of Christ will not lead inevitably to others. It is impossible to make a coherent argument against the use of the crucifix in teaching the Gospel if we have already endorsed the use of a movie that portrays the crucifixion. Merely because one display is static and the other moving does not change their essential nature at all. The Passion of the Christ is in essence, an animated Crucifix.
J. Marcellus Kik in his Pictures of Christ gives wise advice to our churches, which I think all Christians would do well to heed:
"But can it not help in the saving of souls, it is asked. But how? Looking at a picture of Christ hanging upon the cross tells me nothing. It does not tell me that He hung there for sin. It does not tell me that He hung there for my sin. It does not tell me that He is the Son of God. Only the Word of God does that. And it is the Word of God that has been given us to tell the story of salvation through the blood of Christ. It is not through the foolishness of pictures that sinners are converted but through the foolishness of preaching”.
Perhaps you feel that the length of this article or its tone is unnecessary. I suggest to you that it is not simply one film raising a furore amongst the obsessed – what is at stake is an entire mindset that is drifting away from the moorings of Protestant orthodoxy.
Of course we must capitalise on the opportunities provided by Mel Gibson’s film – that does not mean that we have to endorse or appreciate it. There are often Hollywood films that form the foundation for useful gospel conversations, and we can seize the foothold provided without applauding immoral or ungodly scripts or scenes.
The Passion is an evangelistic opportunity – but only in the same sense as The Life of Brian, The Last Temptation of Christ, Bruce Almighty, or The Guru. It treats themes which touch on fundamental issues, but it does so in a wholly inadequate manner, and a manner that we would not wish to see repeated.
The fact is, if any and all depictions of God (including representations of the humanity of his Son) are violations of the second commandment, then in order to be consistent it must preclude all onscreen resemblances of Jesus Christ including Franco Zeffirelli's classic Jesus of Nazareth and even the extraordinarily popular Jesus film, which has been viewed by over 5.5 B people in 236 countries. The question we must honestly ask in the light of God's Word is not whether such depictions are emotive or successful, but whether they are sinful. Our driving force is Scripture, not pragmatism.
Our conclusions also have ramifications that spread further than the choice to avoid or attend The Passion of the Christ:
PowerPoint projected images of Jesus, flannel graph figures, stained glass paintings, ornately or plainly carved crosses on furniture or banners, items of jewellery depicting either the gruesome crucifixion scene itself or the symbol of the cross, dolls lying in mangers, Christmas cards depicting ‘the Holy Family’ etc, all present significant problems.
Possession of items, icons or images of this type is nothing short of idolatry, and if we are to be truly evangelical, we must remove them.
I disagree with this entire article:
compare http://www.founders.org/FJ56/article3.html