No Graven Images

The missiological implications of contemporary video Bible dramatizations

[This image is from The Chosen’s X account. You can find the original post by clicking here.]

[Another note: I had a typo. I wrote that McLuhan said, ‘The media is the message” when in fact it was “The MEDIUM is the message.” Corrected!]

Is this image funny or sacrilegious?

I am struck by the missiological elements involved. I know I am a little late to the party here, as others have addressed this over the past few years. Yet, there appears to be no slowing down the train when it comes to video Bible story telling. Religious movies and series are the rage right now.

I recall somebody sharing a video of Voddie Baucham stating that he “draws the line” at The Chosen. He believes that The Chosen breaks the Second Commandment. It represents a “graven image.”

Dallas Jenkins responded by quoting the Bible:

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Deuteronomy 5:8–10

He went on to argue that the issue in these verses is idolatry. It is sin, according to Jenkins, when the image is substituted for God’s rightful place and that Baucham was misapplying the commandment, as The Chosen does not substitute the drama for God.

So, who is right?

I think they both might be, depending on the culture in which the film is being utilized. This is a good example of missiology informing theology.

McLuhan’s famous trope, “The medium is the message,” was a waypoint in modern culture’s evolving hermeneutic of media. Over the past few decades in particular, we have become experts in separating reality from dramatic interpretations. In other words, we know that a video does not necessarily mean what it appears to reveal. You cannot always believe “your lyin’ eyes.” Thus, a person in a modern, Western culture is mostly able to see a representation of Jesus in film and know that this is dramatized.

Now, change the cultural landscape. Assume that you are entering into a culture without a modern concept of media. You have the Jesus Film in tow (also a dramatization, albeit not in the same vein as The Chosen). You show this to these people, and they, perhaps for the first time, see moving images on a screen. You tell them that this is God incarnate on that screen. Now, you don’t mean… well, you are not suggesting that… I mean, uh, hang on, here.

You see, the entire picture changes (pun intended). Are you communicating clearly at this point? Will they understand the gospel message, or will the overpowering reality of the media become the message? Will they think that they are to worship this moving picture version of Jesus? Will they know that this is a just an actor portraying events, some of which are not in the Bible?

Missiology plays a big role in how we might use this video resource.

This is not simply a question for cultures that are not media soaked, either. With the advent of AI, truth becomes less certain. Is it real or is it AI? As we move into this brave new world, we are going to find original sources, like the Bible, that are much more important. AI is a reality shifter and its ubiquitous nature will make it all that more important that we go to the source.

What About the Drama?

Low levels of biblical literacy has made it difficult for people to parse out what is from the Bible and what is being dramatized. For most of us, this is a bigger issue than the problem of breaking the 2nd Commandment.

I have witnessed people in a church small group talk for five or ten minutes on The Chosen, not realizing that the storyline they are recounting is a part of the drama, not the Bible. At one point I suggested we avoid discussing The Chosen and you can imagine the eyeball rolling I got from doing so. The same with The Passion of the Christ produced by Mel Gibson. It is full of Catholic add-on’s to the Biblical narrative. Few people in my evangelical circles are aware of the extent to which Gibson inserted a Catholic view of the resurrection into the plotline.

Dramatization can help us understand the perspective of the producers and writers, of course. They are forced to make artistic decisions and these give away their views. For example, I watched the first season of the Amazon Prime series House of David. This series makes a big deal out of David’s lowly posture as the product of an illegitimate relationship between Jesse and David’s mother, killed by a lion in the show. This idea (that David was the product of an illegitimate relationship) comes from the Talmud. The Bible makes a veiled reference to David’s standing in Psalm 69:8, but Christian theology does not emphasize this like Judaism does. I never knew this. The dramatization helped me to better understand how Jews see David. Emphasizing this was a choice that the writers made, and they decided to portray David in this way.

The danger is when we don’t dig deeper.

The lesson here is that it is incumbent on us to understand both the missiological issues and the biblical issues.