To: The Ministerial Committee of the Presbytery of the Alleghenies, Evangelical Presbyterian Church

CC: Session of Redeemer Presbyterian Church

Dear Fellow Presbyters:

Greetings in the Name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ! As part of the ordination vows that EPC ministers take, which are substantially the same as those vows that I took when I was ordained in 2018 in ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians, we affirm the following:

Do you promise that if at any time you find yourself out of accord with the system of doctrine as taught in the Scriptures and as contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church you will, on your own initiative, make known to your Presbytery (or to your Session in the case of Ruling Elders and Deacons) the change which has taken place in your views since the assumption of this ordination vow?

I hereby notify the Presbytery of the Alleghenies that my views have changed—but I wish to withdraw an exception previously approved by the Presbytery, reflecting that my views have changed in the direction of greater alignment with the Westminster Standards.

When received into the Presbytery of the Alleghenies in 2022, I stated exceptions to WCF 21.8 and WLC 109. While I still maintain my exception to WCF 21.8,^[1] I wish to formally withdraw my exception to WLC 109, and to have the withdrawal recorded appropriately before Presbytery.

WLC 109 reads:

Q. 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 has appointed. [Emphasis added]

Regarding WLC 109, I wrote in 2022:

I do not believe representations of Jesus in his humanity are inherently sinful, provided the representation is of his human nature and not his divine or glorified nature. Any such representation should be done with wisdom, and should not be worshiped or used as an aid to worship.

I now regard the making of images of the likeness of any person of the Godhead, even for didactic purposes, to be unwise and not keeping with the spirit of the Second Commandment. The evolution in my view has been the result of both my research in the area of Old Testament studies, and my pastoral concerns about the TV series, The Chosen (2017–present).

For several years, I have been working on a book (est. 2026) that examines the production and use of Egyptian and Mesopotamian cult images, as a way of understanding the biblical meaning of the imago Dei. I have been impressed by a central unique feature of Israelite religion: aniconism—specifically what anthropologists call “empty-space aniconism”: there is a footstool or a place in the sanctuary for the deity, but he is visually represented only by his conspicuous absence.[2] This is highlighted, for example, in Deuteronomy 4:11–24, and in the texts regarding the Ark of the Covenant/Ark of God (1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Kgs 19:15//Isa 37:16; 1 Chr 28:2; Ps 99:5; 132:7).

One of the reasons why YHWH, Israel’s God, the one true God, should not be represented in manufactured images (of man or animal or angel or any created thing), is that human beings (each of us) are the living, breathing images of God in the world. To try to encapsulate divine presence in a manufactured image, or in a single human likeness, is not only to disrespect God, but to denigrate humanity.

Regarding The Chosen, this TV series and its impact was a turning point for me, theologically and pastorally. I very much wanted to like the show, and I personally have a high tolerance for artistic interpretations of biblical stories or historical narratives. I have appreciated other biblical movies/TV series, both those that are orthodox and those that are…revisionary. I regularly invite my students to watch and critique movies and TV series in my Old Testament courses.

But what I have found is that, despite good intentions of the producers and actors, it is inevitable that some viewers would conflate the “Jesus” of The Chosen and the actor who portrays him (Jonathan Roumie) with the true Jesus of the Gospels. It was quite unsettling to see ads on YouTube during Lent, in which Roumie, a Roman Catholic, was advertising “Hallow,” a prayer app. I have no knowledge or opinion of this particular app, and no reason to doubt the sincerity of Roumie’s faith. My concern is the cachet and influence that Roumie enjoys by virtue of being “the face of Jesus” for many people. I find this to be the case also for Jim Caviezel, who played “Jesus” in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ (2004)—he receives additional public credibility, despite being a mere actor (also a Roman Catholic).

By comparison, the makers of the classic film Ben-Hur (1959) chose to portray Jesus in a manner which seems consistent with the empty-space aniconism of the ark of the covenant, or the symbol of an empty cross (not a crucifix). In a famous scene,[3] the titular character, desperate for water in the blistering sun, falls to the ground and whispers, “God, help me.” The shadow of a figure moves over him and the music changes, indicating that Jesus is approaching. The audience sees Jesus’s hands pouring water on Ben-Hur’s sunburnt face and lifting the water to Ben-Hur’s cracked lips, but we never see Jesus’s face. The characters of Ben-Hur and the Roman legionnaire speak to Jesus and observe his face, but the audience never sees Jesus’s face (only his form from behind) or hears Jesus’s voice. Jesus is not named in the scene. However, the meaning is clear: Jesus himself is the God to whom Ben-Hur cried out for help; Jesus is the life-giver and healer; Jesus’s look rebukes the cruelty of the soldier. The actions of Jesus and the reactions of the other characters are sufficient to portray Jesus—his “likeness,” meaning his face, is never shown.

Even though the story of Ben-Hur is fictional, the “Jesus” portrayed in the film is consistent with the character of the Jesus of the Gospels; and the portrayal is subtle and indirect, not conducive to conflation, confusion, or idolatry. I am not endorsing the film Ben-Hur as a tool for worship or instruction concerning Jesus—I am merely pointing out the subtlety of this artistic portrayal that is sensitive to the danger of “putting a face” on the Son of God.

We would all like to hope that visual portrayals of Jesus can help the Bible stories come alive to people. But I think that the positive impact of films like The Passion of the Christ and shows like The Chosen is mainly to reenchant and reinvigorate the interest of Christians who already know the true Jesus through the witness of the canonical Gospels. For those whose faith or experience with Jesus in the Bible is marginal, visual portrayals of Jesus run the risk of displacing the discipleship pathway: getting to know Jesus through the given means of written Scripture, faithful teaching in church community, and sacrament. God sent his Son “when the fulness of time had come” (Gal 4:4)—He could have waited to send Jesus until such time as photographic or moving-picture capture of Jesus were possible, but He did not. We have verbal testimony in the form of written Scripture, the indwelling and illuminating Holy Spirit, and the rituals that Jesus gave us (baptism and the Lord’s supper).

Digging into the context of the Scripture as part of my vocation as an Old Testament scholar gave me the language to articulate my pastoral concerns. As with many matters, our Reformed confessions are more profound and pastorally relevant than we might realize. Without wishing to tread on anyone else’s conscience or pastoral discretion/sensibilities, I encourage my fellow pastors and elders to consider whether you should steer people away from representations of Jesus such as The Chosen, and instead replace that questionable tool with other resources to help people grasp the truth of God’s written Word and the Savior who reveals Himself thereby.

Respectfully Submitted,

Rev’d Benjamin D. Giffone, PhD

Transitional Pastor, Redeemer Presbyterian Church, Erie

Member, EPC World Outreach (International Theological Education Network)

[1] As I submitted in 2022: “I believe that the Sabbath principle applies within the New Covenant, but the specific application of that observance is a matter of individual conscience (Col 2:15-16). ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath’ (Mk 2:27). I believe that Sabbath rest can include recreation, so long as it does not replace worship.”

[2] Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context (CBOT 42; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1995), 19.

[3] Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDoyywKt1_0. The actor who portrayed Jesus was not named in the credits.