Introduction:
When I first heard of this movie I gave it little thought. It seemed like the main issue was between Catholics and Jews; the latter accusing the former of anti-Semitism for presenting the Biblical testimony for the part that the Jews played in the death and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. However, I have been amazed, and appalled, at the outpouring of support for this movie from evangelicals. It is as if the Reformed wing of the Protestant Reformation never happened, and that something that represents historic Roman Catholicism idolatry and blasphemy has overnight become acceptable to evangelical Christians. So, let us examine what Christ would think of this movie as we study the word of Christ in the Scriptures.

Jesus said that no man at anytime has "seen the Father" (John 6:46). From this we understand that all the Old Testament theophanies were pre-incarnate appearances of the Son, the second person of the Trinity. Therefore it was Christ who appeared to Moses on the Mount and gave him the Ten Commandments. And what do these commandments require of us? The first commandment deals with who we worship and commands us to have no other gods before the true God. The second commandment states…

"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; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

It is important to note that two things are forbidden in this commandment. One is the making of any image of God. The second is any worshipping of God by means of, or through, the use of such an image. It is therefore incorrect to maintain that we can images of God as long as we do not worship them or worship God by means of them. It is all making of images of God, for whatever purpose, that is forbidden.

That God takes this prohibition very seriously is not only evidenced by the signal punishments he visited on the Jews whenever they transgressed this commandment, but is evident from the commandment itself. God declares he is jealous…jealous of his own image, when it set up in competition with himself. God is a spirit and he abominates being represented in a physical image of any sort and is jealous that such idolatrous trifles should receive the attention and veneration that is due only to him who has commanded his followers to worship him "in spirit and in truth." He states that all who do so do not love him, but rather are those who hate him! He so abominates this practice that he states that he will punish all such idolaters unto the third and fourth generation.

That only images of God are forbidden is also clear. There is no indication that the Jews were denied all art, painting, and sculpture. Christ himself in dealing with the issue of Roman taxation spoke of the image of Caesar on the coin without condemnation of such images. The use of certain images in the tabernacle/temple, such as the cherubim, etc. does not settle the issue either way. What God requires by special command can never be made a general rule of practice. God commanded Joshua to exterminate the Canaanites, but it would be unbiblical to make this a general rule of warfare. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, but it would be murder to generalize such commands. God gave specific commands for the artwork of the tabernacle/temple, and all such artwork was produced under the inspired direction of the Spirit, and by direct command of God, including the choice of images etc. God can and does command things that are exceptions to his normal laws, and no such commands can be the basis for our actions.

That what God forbids in the second commandment is not specifically images of pagan gods, but any and all images and physical representations of the true God, is also clear. The worship of any false gods by whatever means, has already been forbidden by the first commandment, and it would be redundant and confusing to, after forbidden all such worship, to then add a separate commandment forbidding a certain mode of worshipping such false gods. Rather the history of Israel clearly teaches us that it is the worshipping of the true God by such means that God forbids.

. The Jews broke this very commandment and formed an image of Jahweh while Moses was on the Mount receiving the law. They formed a religious image, a physical representation of their God, Jahweh, in the form of a golden calf. And they were severely rebuked for it. God’s wrath was so stirred by this act of idolatry that he threatened to destroy the entire people and raise up a new covenant people through Moses (Exodus 32:1-35). Only Moses’ intercession prevented the Lord’s judgment from blotting out the nation at that time. This demonstrates the severity with which God reacts to sins of idolatry and breaches of the second commandment. The context makes it clear that they were worshipping the God that had brought them out of Egypt, and that the entire idolatrous festival was a "feast unto Jahweh." Similarly, later in the time of the Judges, Micah’s idolatry was a breach of the second commandment. Again the context makes it clear that the graven image of silver was an image of the LORD (Jahweh). See verses 2 and 13 of Judges 17. The author’s (Samuel?) inspired response to this lawless act of idolatry was "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 17:6. The Bible teaches that the ultimate result of Micah’s idolatry was, "And they set them up Micah’s graven image, which he made, all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh." Judges 18:31.

 The total incompatibility of this type of forbidden worship, with the worship that God has established according to his word is here clearly contrasted. Evangelicals will have to choose, whether they want that worship that God commands and requires of all men in his word, or that worship that is the invention of, and is according to the imaginations of sinful men. The Bible indicates that they cannot have it both ways, worshipping in the temple of the Lord and in the temple of idols. They have to choose and it seems that millions of them are choosing the latter.

That this movie constitutes idolatry and a breach of the second commandment is testified to by all the Reformed confessions and catechisms. The following quotes should suffice to establish that…

Q. 109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; 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 pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed. 

The Heidelberg Catechism (Lord's Day 35, Q/A 96-98) reads as follows:

Q. What does God require in the Second Commandment?

A. We are not to make an image of God in any way, nor to worship him in any other manner than he has commanded in his Word (Deut. 4:15-19; Isa. 40:18-25; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:23; Lev. 10:1-7; Deut. 12:30; 1 Sam. 15:22-23; Matt. 15:9; John 4:23-24).

Q. May we then not make any image at all?

A. God cannot and may not be visibly portrayed in any way. Creatures may be portrayed, but God forbids us to make or have any images of them in order to worship them or to serve God through them (Ex. 34:13-14, 17; Num. 33:52; 2 Kings. 18:4-5; Isaiah 40:25).

Q. But may images not be tolerated in the churches as "books for the laity?"

A. No, for we should not be wiser than God. He wants his people to be taught not by means of dumb images but by the living preaching of his Word (Jer. 10:8; Hab. 2:18-20; Rom. 10:14-15, 17; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:19).

The Second Helvetic Confession (written in 1561, published in 1566)
Chapter 4 - Of Idols or Images of God, Christ and The Saints

1. Images of God: Since God as Spirit is in essence invisible and immense, he cannot really be expressed by any art or image. For this reason we have no fear pronouncing with Scripture that images of God are mere lies. Therefore we reject not only the idols of the Gentiles, but also the images of Christians.

2. Images of Christ: Although Christ assumed human nature, yet he did not on that account assume it in order to provide a model for carvers and painters. He denied that he had come "to abolish the law and the prophets" (Matt. 5:17). But images are forbidden by the law and the prophets (Deut. 4:15; Isa. 44:9). He denied that his bodily presence would be profitable for the Church, and promised that he would be near us by his Spirit forever (John 16:7). Who, therefore, would believe that a shadow or likeness of his body would contribute any benefit to the pious? (2 Cor. 5:5). Since he abides in us by his Spirit, we are therefore the temple of God (2 Cor. 3:16). But "what agreement has the temple of God with idols?" (2 Cor. 6:16). 

The Assembly's Shorter Catechism Explained, By Way of Question and Answer (1753)
Ebenezer Erskine and James Fisher
Q. 9. May we not have a picture of Christ, who has a true body?
A. By no means; because, though he has a true body and a reasonable soul, John 1:14, yet his human nature subsists in his divine person, which no picture can represent, Psalm 45:2.

Q. 10. Why ought all pictures of Christ to be abominated by Christians?
A. Because they are downright lies, representing no more than the picture of a mere man: whereas, the true Christ is God-man; "Immanuel, God with us," 1 Tim. 3:16; Matt. 1:23.

This understanding of the second commandment was the uniform opinion not only of the entire Calvinist wing of the Reformation (Lutherans were more tolerant of images), but has been the consistent opinion of the Dutch Reformed, English Puritans, Scotch and American Presbyterians from the days of Calvin until into the twentieth century. A few examples are quoted below…

John Owen, (The Glory of Christ (1679) Many there are who, not comprehending, not being affected with, that divine, spiritual description of the person of Christ which is given us by the Holy Ghost in the Scripture, do feign unto themselves false representations of him by images and pictures, so as to excite carnal and corrupt affections in their minds. By the help of their outward senses, they reflect on their imaginations the shape of a human body, cast into postures and circumstances dolorous or triumphant; and so, by the working of their fancy, raise a commotion of mind in themselves, which they suppose to be love unto Christ. But all these idols are teachers of lies. The true beauty and amiableness of the person of Christ, which is the formal object and cause of divine love, is so far from being represented herein, as that the mind is thereby wholly diverted from the contemplation of it. For no more can be so pictured unto us but what may belong unto a mere man, and what is arbitrarily referred unto Christ, not by faith, but by corrupt imagination.

The beauty of the person of Christ, as represented in the Scripture, consists in things invisible unto the eyes of flesh. They are such as no hand of man can represent or shadow. It is the eye of faith alone that can see this King in his beauty. What else can contemplate on the untreated glories of his divine nature? Can the hand of man represent the union of his natures in the same person, wherein he is peculiarly amiable? What eye can discern the mutual communications of the properties of his different natures in the same person, which depends thereon, whence it is that God laid down his life for us, and purchased his church with his own blood? In these things, O vain man! does the loveliness of the person of Christ unto the souls of believers consist, and not in those strokes of art which fancy has guided a skilful hand and pencil unto. And what eye of flesh can discern the inhabitation of the Spirit in all fulness in the human nature? Can his condescension, his love, his grace, his power, his compassion, his offices, his fitness and ability to save sinners, be deciphered on a tablet, or engraven on wood or stone? However such pictures may be adorned, however beautified and enriched, they are not that Christ which the soul of the spouse does love; they are not any means of representing his love unto us, or of conveying our love unto him; they only divert the minds of superstitious persons from the Son of God, unto the embraces of a cloud, composed of fancy and imagination. Works of John Owen, Volume 1, Page 372 

Charles Hodge: (Systematic Theology, Volume III, pp. 291-297)"In other words idolatry consists not only in the worship of false gods, but also in the worship of the true God by images."

"The thing repeatedly and solemnly forbidden as a violation of the covenant between God and his people, was the bowing down to, or using anything visible…as an object or mode of divine worship."

"…the worship of Jehovah by the use of images is denounced and punished (in the Bible) as an act of apostasy from God."

"In this sense these commands were understood by the ancient people of God to whom they were originally given, and by the whole Christian Church until the sudden influx of nominally converted heathen into the Church after the time of Constantine, who brought with them heathenish ideas and insisted on heathen modes of worship."

"Salvation, our Lord said, is of the Jews. The founders of the Christian Church were Jews. The religion of the Old Testament in which they had been educated forbade the use of images in divine worship. All the heathen were worshippers of idols. Idol-worship, therefore, was an abomination to the Jews. With the Old Testament authority against the use of images and with this strong national prejudice against their use, it is absolutely incredible that they should be admitted in the more spiritual worship of the Christian Church. It was not until three centuries after the introduction of Christianity, that the influence of the heathen element introduced into the Church was strong enough to overcome the natural opposition to their use in the service of the sanctuary. Three parties soon developed themselves in connection with this subject. The first adhered to the teachings of the Old Testament and the usage of the Apostolic Churches, and repudiated the religious use of images in any form. The second allowed the use of images and pictures for the purpose of instruction, but not for worship. The common people could not read, and therefore it was argued that visible representations of Scriptural persons and incidents were allowable for their benefit. The third contended for their use not only as a means of instruction, but also for worship.

As early as A. D. 305, the Council of Elvira in Spain condemned the use of pictures in the Church. Augustine complained of the superstitious use of images; Eusebius of Caesarea, and Epiphanius of Salamis, protested against their being made objects of worship; and Gregory the Great allowed their use only as means of instruction.'

In A. D. 726 the Emperor Leo III. issued an ordinance forbidding the use of images in churches as heathenish and heretical. To support his action a council was called, which met in Constantinople A. D. 754, and which gave ecclesiastical sanction to this condemnation. In A. D. 787, however, the- Empress Irene, under Roman influence, called a council, which Romanists of the Italian school consider ecumenical, at Nice, by which image-worship was fully sanctioned. This Council first met in Constantinople, but there the opposition to the use of images was so strong that it was disbanded and called to meet the following year at Nice. Here the face of things had changed; enemies had been converted; opponents became advocates…Few could withstand the promises and threats of those in power, and the cogency of the argument for image worship drawn from the numerous miracles adduced in favour of their worship. This Council, therefore, declared the previous Council, called by Leo III., heretical, and. ordained the worship of pictures in the churches…The Council announced the principle on which image-worship, whether among the heathen or Christians, has generally been defended, i.e., that the worship paid the image terminates on the object which it represents.

The decisions of this Council, although sanctioned by the Pope, gave offence to the Western Churches. The Emperor Charlemagne not only caused a book to be written (entitled "Libri Carolini") to refute the doctrines inculcated, but also summoned a council to meet at Frankfort on the Main A. D. 794, at which delegates from Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and even two legates from the Bishop of Rome, were present; where the decrees of the so-called General Council of Nice were "rejected," "despised" and "condemned." All worshipping of pictures and images was forbidden, but their presence in the churches for instruction and ornament was allowed. 

Robert Lewis Dabney: (Lectures In Systematic Theology, pp. 363-364)
The Council of Trent urges that the image is not itself regarded as divine; but only as a visible representation, to assist the unlearned especially, in conceiving the real presence of the invisible. To this I reply: it is just the distinction which all the pagans make, except the most besotted. Does any one suppose that the acute Hindoo is so stupid as to mistake the lump of clay or wood, which yesterday was a clod or a stick, and which he saw helpless in the hands of the mechanic, for a true God? If charged with such folly, he makes precisely the Papist's reply: that he worships the invisible God through the help of the visible representation of Him. So answered the ancient idolaters to the primitive Christians. By adopting it, the Papist puts himself, where he properly belongs, in the pagan category. And this is the very sin which the Scriptures intend to prohibit. An examination of the sin with Aaron's calf, (Exodus 32,) of Micah's idolatry, (Judges 17:3-13,) and of the sin of Jeroboam, I Kings 12:28, will show that in each case the criminal attempt was to worship the true Jehovah, unmistakably recognized by His incommunicable name, or as He who brought Israel out of Egypt, through an image supposed appropriate

To worship the true God by an image is, then, the very thing forbidden, because such a representation is necessarily false. For, God being a spiritual, immense, and invisible Being, to represent Him as a limited material form, is a falsehood. To clothe Him with the form of any of His creatures, angelic, human, or animal, is the most heinous insult to His majesty. God is a Spirit, cognizable by no sense. To represent Him by a material, visible and palpable image or picture is a false representation. He is omnipresent. To draw or carve Him as bounded by an outline, and contained in a local form, belies this attribute. He is self-existent, and has no beginning. To represent Him by what His puny creature made, and what yesterday was not, belies His self-existence and eternity. He declares Himself utterly unlike all creatures, and incomprehensible by them. To liken Him to any of them is both a misrepresentation and insult. Hence, a material image of the Godhead, or of any Person thereof, is an utter falsehood. Papists used to be fond of saying : "Images are the books of the unlearned." We reply: they are books then, which teach lies only. The crowning argument against them, is that the Scriptures expressly forbid them; and equally plainly, base their prohibition on the fact that no image can correctly represent God. Deut. 4:15, 16; Is. 40: 12-18; Acts 17:29.

Such quotations could be multiplied into a full length book. Hodge’s comments, especially about the practice of the Old Testament Church, the Apostolic Church, and the Early Christian Church, and how this was subverted into idolatry is especially instructive. The excuses that it was merely for instruction and that no worship was involved, or by the more consistent idolaters, that the worship was either of a lesser type than that rendered to God, or that the worship was transmitted through the image to the real recipient, God, is also reminiscent of today’s debate. All this was re-enacted at the time of the Reformation with Roman Catholics using these excuses in the face of Calvinist critiques of their idolatry. And the real tragedy is that today these very same excuses are on the lips of evangelicals and even some Reformed. These are so ignorant of their own heritage, and the superstition and idolatry that they have been delivered from by the faith and heroic actions of their forefathers, that they run to embrace these abominable idolatries and defend them with the same deluded lies.

The Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages was saturated with icons (pictures) and images of Christ, particularly crucifixes, that catered to the superstitions of the people. The Reformers purged the church of these unholy and unauthorized corruptions of God’s service and instituted that pure worship commanded by God and established by Christ and his apostles. For Protestants to go back to such dregs would be to come under the condemnation of such scriptures as…

But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Galatians 4:9

But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. 2 Peter 2:22

Nowhere in his word has Christ ever authorized men to make any image of him for any purpose whatsoever. Instead he has most specifically forbidden it. First of all, Christ is God and all images of God are forbidden expressly in the word of God. As Moses warned the children of Israel,

14And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it. ¹⁵Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude (Ed. Note: or likeness) on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: ¹⁶Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, ¹⁷The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, ¹⁸The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: ¹⁹And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven. ²⁰But the LORD hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day…²³Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee. ²⁴For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God. Deuteronomy 4:14-24

As Thomas Boston put it, "All ideas, portraitures, shapes, images of God, whether by effigies or pictures, are here forbidden…God is to adored in the heart, not painted to the eye." "To make a true image of God is impossible. God is a spiritual essence and, being a Spirit, he is invisible John 4:24." "But how shall we of God aright if we may not make any image or resemblance of him? We must conceive of God spiritually…In his attributes…We must conceive of him as he is in Christ. Christ is the "image of the invisible God."

Secondly, one of the reasons that nowhere in the Scriptures do we have a physical description of Jesus Christ is that God does not want us to attampt to make any physical representation of his son. God so hates this kind of idolatry, that he has cast this stumbling block before would be idolaters, that it is impossible to make an accurate image of the Lord Jesus Christ. All we know is that he was not handsome (Isaiah 53:2) and that he had a beard (Isaiah 50:6). What we do know is that is totally impossible to portray the Lord Jesus Christ as he was. The Apostle John says of him, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14). As the Reformers and the Puritans stated, any pretended image of the Lord Jesus Christ is a lie and is a violation of the ninth commandment. It is utterly impossible to portray the Lord Jesus Christ. He was the Lord of Glory; He was God incarnate; He was holy harmless, and undefiled. The incarnation of the Son of God is a mystery that we can only wonder at. For any sinful and corrupt human being to seek to portray Jesus Christ in a movie has to be considered a supreme act of blasphemy.

All this is to say nothing of such obvious errors in portraying Christ as are almost universal. For instance it is almost without exception that Christ is pictured in icons and images as having long hair. Now this is not only unhistorical, being an anachronism, as the cultures of the day, Greek, Roman, and Jewish, all had men with relatively short hair, but it presents the Lord Jesus Christ as being in violation of God’s creation ordinances. The Apostle Paul tells us, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" (1 Corinthians 11:14). Is it not sinful to portray the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, as corrupting God’s natural order and having to be ashamed? God forbid that we should so dishonor the Lord.

What would Christ think of those who defy his commandments and seek to portray him in some physical manner or representation? Perhaps his sober warning uttered in the gospels would indicate his sentiments. There he says…

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7:21-23

Motives are important. God, who only is the discerner of the thoughts and intent of the heart, judges both our acts and our motives. God says in his word that the very plowing of the wicked is sin because they do it from wrong motives (Proverbs 21:4). The very prayers of the wicked are sin because their hearts are not right with God (Proverbs 28:9). God is interested in motives. What are Mel Gibson’s motives for producing this movie? The Lord only really knows, but Mel has given us some indications as to his purposes in producing this movie.

Mel Gibson is an extreme, traditionalist, Roman Catholic. He rejects Vatican II that somewhat liberalized the Roman Catholic Church and allowed among other things the celebration of the Mass in the vernacular. In other words Mel believes that the Mass should be celebrated only in the Latin language. This is one of the reasons he had for producing the movie. The movie was produced without any English dialogue. The Jews speak in Aramaic, the popular language of the Jews of Palestine at the time, and the Romans in the movie speak in Latin. Mel’s purpose was to make an argument for the Latin Mass. If a movie without any English could move and stir people and communicate the things of Christ the argument could be made that the Latin Mass could do likewise and the church should return to the tradition of having Latin as the ecclesiastical language. I understand that Mel was only after much argument reluctantly persuaded to employ English subtitles in the movie.

Now this was a major issue at the time of the Reformation. The people understood nothing of the service. It was all show and pageantry, an exercise in idolatry and superstition. The Reformers insisted on preaching the word of God to the people in their own language. As the Apostle Paul argued it to the Corinthian Church…

"Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?…So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air…Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me…Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." (1 Corinthians 14:6,9,11,19).

Therefore the Westminster Confession of Faith declares…

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old) and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical, so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto and interest in the Scriptures and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar (i.e. common) language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope. (Chapter 1, Section VIII, emphasis mine).

Mel Gibson’s motive is to subvert the preaching of God’s word in the language of the people, and return to the superstitions of the medieval Catholic Church where images, ritual, and religious show excited the people’s senses, while leaving them ignorant of the word of God.

There is however, an even more serious motive in Mel’s mind. Mel believes in the Roman Catholic mass. Now, while the Protestant Lord’s Supper is merely symbolic of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, to a Roman Catholic the mass is a sacrifice. Roman Catholics believe in transubstantiation, that at the words of institution, "Hoc est corpus meus," (Latin for "this is my body" This is the source of the magic incantation we have all heard "Hocus pocus.") the bread becomes the actual, physical body of Christ and the wine becomes that actual, physical blood of Christ. These are then sacrificed again for the sins of the people. Christ is constantly being reincarnated and being resacrificed to provide a continuing atonement for sin. The Reformers considered this rejection of the sufficiency of the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:27; 9:12, 26-28; 10:2-14) as being blasphemous and the mass itself an exercise in superstition and magic. Now Mel, as a traditionalist Catholic believes in the equivalence of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and the sacrifice of the mass. The mass in Catholic doctrine is a real reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ, providing a continuing atonement for sin. Mel’s movie is designed to be 20^th century mass, a similar portrayal and reenactment of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as the mass is intended to be. The crucifix, representing the worst of Romish idolatry was an image of the crucified Christ which was worshipped and prayed to. This movie is designed to be a living crucifix, and partly in Latin, etc. according to the traditional Roman ritual. If Protestants can stomach that they are not only committing idolatry, but have denied the validity of the once and for all atonement offered by Jesus Christ on the cross two millennia ago and have come to put their trust in something else.

Then there is Mel’s Mariolatry; his worship of the Virgin Mary. His movie is based on the book about visions of the Virgin Mary by a Catholic mystic. "He has produced this film with an image of Christ that is based on the apparitions of the catholic mystic, Anne Catherine Emmerich, who claimed to have seen visions of the passion, death, and resurrection of ‘Christ’ which were recorded in her book, The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ." Based on the pretended visions in this book Mary played a significant part in Christ’s passion and is seen as offering up her son. Many extra-Biblical scenes have been added to the film to portray Mary’s part in our salvation. This should not surprise us as Mel Gibson is on record as having stated that Mary is "a tremendous co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix." That this is horrible blasphemy against the Lord Jesus Christ should be evident to all who love the word of God. That word declares…

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1 Timothy 2:5

Finally, although it may rank last, Gibson is clearly also planning to make money on this venture. Not only has been cleverly marketing this to gullible "evangelicals" (???), playing on their ignorance of their own faith, but he has already unveiled an aggressive merchandising plan. He intends to sell a lot of "Passion" merchandise including a huge crucifixion nail that can be worn as a necklace with a leather thong. He has already showcased mugs and T-shirts, etc. with scenes from "the Passion." Now we all know what Christ thought of the commercialization of religion. Twice he cleansed the temple of those who would turn it into a house of merchandise (John 2:13-17; Matthew 21:12). And when Christ gave his commandments to Moses on Moses on Mount Sinai it included the third commandment which says, "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain" (Exodus 20:7). In vain means lightly or frivolously, without the honor, reverence, and awe due to the names of God. All such merchandise with the associated gimmicks and slogans, and all such prostituting the name of God for commercial gain, are a violation of this commandment. God says he will NOT hold such GUILTLESS. Do Christians want to bring such guilt and judgment on themselves by participating in the commercialization of the Lord’s holy name?

Then there is the actor who plays Christ. We have already noted that for any man to portray Christ is an act of impious blasphemy. Apart from that the specific actor Mel has chosen brings his own peculiar set of problems to his attempted portrayal of our Lord. Problems that should make all who love the Lord Jesus Christ and honor the word of God depart from the iniquity represented by this film. I submit the following quote…

"Jim Caviezel [replied]: ‘The catharsis for me to play this role was through Medjugorje... In preparation, I used all that Medjugorje taught me. Mel Gibson and I were going every day for Mass together. Some days I couldn't go for Mass, but I was receiving the Eucharist. Somewhere along the line, I heard that the Pope was going for confession every day, so I thought that I should go for confession as often as possible. So, the confession was the preparation for the Eucharist. Ivan Dragicevic and his wife Lorraine gave me a piece of the true cross. I kept this on me all the time. They made a special pocket in my clothes for it. I also had relics of Padre Pio, St. Anthony of Padoua, Ste Maria Goretti, and saint Denisius, the Patron saint of Actors. Another thing was fasting. I read many of the messages continuously. Every day everyone could see me with the rosary in my hands.’"

Evangelicals, please note, the actor specifically and emphatically states that the inspiration for his performance came not from the word of God, but from the pretended visions of the Virgin Mary, alluded to above, that took place in Medjugorje, in Bosnia. In preparation he didn’t read the gospel accounts of the death and suffering of our Lord, but rather attended the idolatrous Roman Catholic Mass, that rejects the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and repudiates his final words on the cross…"It is finished." For strength and support he didn’t rely on the Lord Jesus Christ who he is pretending to represent. Instead he draws strength, support, and inspiration from the worst of Roman Catholic superstitions…relic worship. He goes about his task upheld in his work by a piece of the "true cross" in his pocket, and relying on the assistance of the saints, particularly the patron saints of actors. This assistance is evoked by the use of pretended relics of these pretended saints. Finally, he spends his spare time on the set praying the rosary. The rosary, let true believers remember, is an idolatrous set of prayers, prayed mechanically, with ten prayers to Mary for every prayer directed to God. In his repudiation of such heathen practices Jesus said …

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Matthew 6:7

Is this what evangelicals want to support? Is this what evangelical pastors want their flocks to imbibe? Having been caught up in the debate between Mel Gibson and his unbelieving critics, many evangelicals have urged attendance at this film as a vote against these critics. Rather, having seen this movie for what it is, and having seen Mel’s agenda for what it is seeking to be, evangelicals should be voting with their feet to boycott this movie. They should be testifying to their faith in the Jesus Christ set forth in the word of God and repudiating the false "Christ" of this film.

Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). Paul said, "And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. (2 Timothy 2:19). John said, "Little children, keep yourselves from idols" (1 John 5:21) and "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8). How can those who love the Lord Jesus Christ support such intolerable disobedience, idolatry, and blasphemy against the Lord who purchased their redemption with his own blood?

This film was released on the Catholic "Holy day" of Ash Wednesday. This was by design. This unscriptural and extra-scriptural alleged "holyday," marks the beginning of the Roman Catholic season of Lent. The Roman Catholic ecclesiastical calendar is filled with such unscriptural holydays, including many saints days, etc. Speaking to the Galatian churches, already starting to fall into this kind of legalism, Paul declared, "But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." Galatians 4:9-11. Paul does not take falling into such observances lightly. He makes it a mark of standing for the faith or falling from the faith. If we forsake the worship of the rue God as it is instituted in his word for that worship which is based on the commandments and inventions of men, Paul states that our faith is vain and that efforts to be reconciled to God based on such devices are in vain. Yet this is all part and parcel of the Roman Catholic idolatry that constitutes this film.

Many will profess how much good it is doing and will testify to how they were blessed by this movie. Even if that were true, and what manner of Christian would be blessed by what we have described above, how could God really bless what he has condemned in his word, that very word that condemns those who say, "Let us do evil, that good may come?" declaring that their "damnation is just." God, it is true, can bring good out of evil. He used Judas’ betrayal of his Lord for thirty pieces of silver, and the Sanhedrin’s unjust conviction of Christ on a charge of blasphemy, and Pontius Pilate’s cowardly submission to political blackmail in condemning Christ to crucifixion, to work out our salvation. But would we therefore justify their sin. Not at all! It is not for nothing that the Scriptures call Judas the son of perdition, intimating that he will expiate his crimes for all eternity in the fires of God’s eternal wrath.

Rather let us be faithful to the commands of our Lord; let us depart from all forms of idolatry; let us honor his name; and let is worship not according to sinful inventions of men, but according to the Scriptures, "in Spirit and in truth."