These thoughts were prompted partly by the lengthy and fascinating discussion thread ‘Don’t Forget to Grieve’ and partly by seeing, and being somewhat dissatisfied by, ‘The Passion of the Christ’. In the discussion Alario asks the question: ‘How does the Church live out its faith and communicate to the post-modern precisely the magnitude of the price paid by Jesus and demonstrated in His crucifixion?’ I went to see Gibson’s film with a friend who is not a believer. His immediate reaction was that a religion so obsessed with the infliction of pain was morally repugnant. Alario’s question, therefore, is highly pertinent. These brief and rather haphazard biblical notes are really only a preliminary to answering it – and may well need correcting.
The crucifixion in the Gospels
The Gospels are reticent about Jesus’ physical sufferings. There is much greater emphasis on the mockery and contempt expressed by Jews and Romans alike. Indeed, what is shocking about the crucifixion as it is presented in the Gospels is not the pain that Jesus endured but the absurdity and insolence of his claims to kingship. Nothing suggests that the scourging by the Romans was anything more than routine; we are given no reason to believe that he was treated any more brutally prior to the crucifixion than the two men executed alongside him, who would also have been scourged. Josephus describes the crucifixion of hundreds of Jewish prisoners during the Jewish War: they were ‘scourged and subjected to torture of every description… and then crucified opposite the city walls’.
There is little in the Gospel narratives to suggest that the pain Jesus endured had redemptive significance; the reader is not expressly invited to meditate upon – or even be moved by – his sufferings. Psalm 22, from which Jesus quotes (‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’), looks forward to the salvation of the one who is afflicted by his enemies, and perhaps implicitly of the people, but we are not led to think that the suffering is redemptive or sacrificial: God saves because he is faithful towards Israel.
Jesus’ suffering for the sin of the people
The ‘destruction’ of Jesus’ body by the Romans prefigured or anticipated the destruction of the temple by the Romans (cf. Ezekiel’s prophetic suffering in Ezekiel 4:4-8). In that sense, he suffered the judgment that was about to come upon the people – he took upon himself the punishment for their sin, their rebellion against YHWH. He was destroyed so that those who believed in him, who had committed themselves to take this ‘way’ to the Father, might escape destruction and form the new community of the age to come. The point of his suffering is not that it was uniquely severe but that it was exactly the sort of treatment that the Jews could expect to receive from the Romans – in that sense, it was representative, and indeed prophetic, of what was to come.
But I wonder if a rather different logic does not apply in the case of the Gentiles. It makes less sense – historically at least – to say that Christ died in my place. But certainly, through his death a door has been opened for me to become part of the covenant people, to acknowledge the lordship of the ‘Son of God’, to share in the life of the age to come, to move from darkness into light, from condemnation to approval. As Paul puts it, through the ‘blood of Christ’ the wall dividing Jews and Gentiles has been broken down so that we all now ‘have access in one Spirit to the Father’ (Eph.3:18).
The sufferings of Christ in the New Testament church
Later reflection upon the suffering of Jesus in the New Testament is limited – and, more importantly, set within the context of the expectation that his followers were likely to suffer in a similar way. Paul says far more about his own sufferings than he does about Christ’s. When he speaks of sharing in Christ’s sufferings (eg. 2 Cor.1:5), it is because he is suffering as Christ suffered, and therefore receives the same consolation and has the same hope of resurrection. He does not encourage his readers to meditate upon – or grieve over – the torture and execution of Jesus as some sort of spiritual exercise.
Indeed, it seems to me that Paul harboured the desire – if not the ambition – to follow exactly in Christ’s footsteps. He renounced whatever ‘gain’ he had under the law in order to ‘know him and the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, being conformed to his death’ (Phil.3:10). His uncertainty about attaining the resurrection from the dead (Phil.3:11) is not that he wasn’t sure of his salvation but that he wasn’t sure that he would die before the coming of Christ: if he did not die as Christ had died, he would not be raised as Christ had been raised. His argument in the difficult verse Colossians 1:24, if we read it correctly, is that he expects to suffer to the same extent that Christ suffered – that is to the point of death. Translations usually imply that there is some deficiency in Christ’s sufferings: ‘in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church’ (RSV). The word order in the Greek is rather different, giving something like ‘I complete what is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for the sake of his body, which is the church’. The deficiency is in his own flesh: he has not yet suffered in his own body to the extent that Christ suffered.
Andrew's friend's reaction to
Andrew’s friend’s reaction to “The Passion of the Christ” should not seem unusual or unexpected. Given the heightened publicity, graphic violence and the sharpened expectations by many Christians of the film’s saving effect on the non-Christian audience it is little wonder that Andrew’s friend would make such a comment. I think Andrew’s friend has mistaken a (possibly) misplaced overzealousness on the part of certain Christians to make this movie “the” great event which would “reach” the unbeliever for an obsession on the part of Christianity with violence. It is difficult to agree with the characterization of Christianity as “morally repugnant” when its teachings speak of turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, giving up your cloak and loving neighbors and enemies alike.
I agree with Andrew that the film implies something more happening to Jesus than a disinterested flogging. The crucifixion, I thought, was depicted as rather routine and somewhat inept. But who can actually say, as the records are scanty and silent on the matter, with respect to His torture, whether or not Jesus stimulated some dark emotions beyond those implicit in the simple carrying out of orders to flog a person?
It is not necessary to believe so but it cannot be ruled out. There are many instances in history where “simple” cruelty escalated into frenzied atrocities. With the dark prince behind the scenes, who can say for certain? It is meaningful, as Andrew states, that Jesus’s passion was the kind of common, everyman, sort of death signifying that Jesus was a representative of others.
I wonder if it does not make a great deal of sense to say that, even as a Gentile, Jesus died for me.
I can make little sense of St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans, in particluar Chapters 9,10 and 11, capped with his warnings to Gentiles against boasting and the possibilities of being “broken off” the branch if Jesus did not die for Gentiles as a group and as individuals. “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;…” was written to Corinthians, Jews and Gentiles, making no distinction between the two.
Historically speaking I see a thread of redemption in the Scriptures. Shadowy, and vague at first and becoming clearer and culminating in the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus. I see this thread encompassing Jews and Gentiles alike.
Adam and Eve, cannot with any confidence be called Jewish, yet despite their disobediance and despite their self initiated attempts to cover their nakedness (such attempt God evidently rejected), God Himself provided a covering satisfactory to Himself for their nakedness. According to Scripture, it is evident that animal skins required the death of the skins previous owners, and a shedding of blood.
Their offspring, one attempting to bring offering to God with the fruit of the earth, (akin to covering onself with leaves?) finds his offering unsatisfactory to God whereas his sibling, offering a slaughtered animal, satisfies his Maker. Noah likewise offered slaughtered animals in worship to God.
This system was refined into the more formal rituals of the tabernacle and temples. I suggest the Ark of the Covenant contained at one time those items which shouted out to God the sins of His people-their rejection of His ways, rejection of His authority and rejection of His loving provision for His people. The lamb’s blood sprinkled on this “Mercy Seat” covered up these sins for a year. This year in and year out sacrifical system, almost monotonous in its regularity, I believe was intended to hammer into God’s people the notion that sin had a price and that price could only be satisfied with a substitute’s death.
Is not a substitutionary death implied in John the Baptist introducing Jesus with ” …Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” Could the Baptist just as easily narrowed the scope of the Lamb’s efficacy? Does not St. Paul imply something similar similar in a different context saying, to Gentiles and Jews,”…Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:…”? Do not St. Paul and St. John suggest this refering to Christ as a mercy seat or a propitiation?
I even see Job, (a gentile?) seeing clearly into God’s redemptive thoughts. ” If I wash myself with snow water and make my hands never so clean; yet shalt thou plunge me into the ditch, and my own clothes shall abhor me. For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment. Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both.” Job 9:30-33.
Yet this seems an apt description of the Incarnation and its importance in reconciling both Jews and gentiles to God. “…God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” 1 Timothy 2:3-6
Not the most cogent of posts but in general a sort of quick overview of what I believe the Scriptures say on these matters. I hasten to my wife, dinner and the newest episode of “24”. Adieu for now.
Your brother and friend in Christ,
Alario
comment by Andrew's friend
I think that Andrew’s friend was on-target about a religion obsessed with pain. I wasn’t impressed with theology of Gibson’s film, which amplified details the gospels themselves are completely uninterested in, right down to the digitally-enhanced sounds of each drop of blood hitting the ground. It goes far beyond realism, and implies an argument (that what made Jesus’ suffering salvific is that he suffered so much — more, according to the film, than others who were being crucified) that the New Testament itself never makes. Jesus himself belongs to the Prophetic tradition in Israel in which God says, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice”; I think the emphasis among some contemporary preachers on blood and pain says more about our culture’s obsession with violence than it does about Jesus or the God Jesus proclaimed.
Sarah Dylan Breuer
Morally Repugnant?
That Christianily is morally repugnant due to its “obsession” with violence is off base.
The merits of Jesus’s character and His teachings are the exact opposite of morally repugnant.
Whether or not Christianity is “obsessed” with pain and violence is a matter of debate. What per cent attention to pain and violence qualify as “obsessive”? Does thirty per cent attention to them get a pass and forty per cent qualify as “obsessive” therefore rendering Christianiy “morally repugnant”? What amount of pain and violence may Christianity present? Some? None?
Does the graphic violence depicted in “Schindler’s List” qualify as “obsessive”? If so, does it render the film “morally repugnant”?
Given the culture’s preoccupation with violence and its desensitization to it, is it possible that Spielberg and Gibson used technological means at their disposal to enhance the graphic of violence in their films to get their message to a desensitized culture? This is what I believe Gibson was doing. It seems to me the New Testament writers, given the time and place, did not need graphic description and enhancement to give substance to the terms crucifixion and scourging.
I do not believe Gibson implied that the degree of violence done to Jesus was what gave it its merit. If he intended this, I believe he is wrong. What gives the Passion merit is on Whom the violence was inflicted and for whom it was inflicted, not its degree.
It is difficult to castigate a preacher for an overemphasis on blood and pain by preaching on the crucifixion when such preaching was a major (if not an essential) element of apostolic preaching. “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.” Galatians 6:14 “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” I Corinthians 1:17,18
On this topic of violence and the prophetic tradition of which Jesus is a part we need to remember that Samuel’s instructions from God to Saul on how to deal with Amalek in I Samuel 15 is also part of that tradition and the over arching meta-narrative that we keep talking about and with which we have to deal.
Your brother and friend in Christ
Alario
reply to Alario
Alario,
I never said that *Christianity* is “a religion obsessed with violence.” Clearly I don’t find Christianity to be morally repugnant, or I wouldn’t be a Christian. My point was precisely that Gibson’s film struck me as being obsessed with violence in a way that the New Testament and the apostolic fathers were not. I’d say that it’s significant that your examples of apostolic preaching taken from Paul’s letters mention the Cross, but do not go into any further detail about it. That says to me that it’s possible to preach on the Cross without succumbing to our culture’s obsession with violence; I strive to do that most Sundays.
I thought the Gibson film was OK — neither the horrible thing that some make it out to be nor the divinely inspired (authoritative and inerrant?) thing that others make it out to be. I’m glad that some have found their faith deepened by their experience of watching the film. I do find it disturbing, though, that in so much of the discussion taking place among Christians about the film, anyone who criticizes anything about the film is perceived as criticizing Christianity.
BTW, in talking about what “we keep talking about” and saying “we have to deal,” you seem to speak of the “meta-narrative” implied in your reading of 1 Samuel 15 as if it were universal and had a life of its own, aside from the life of the reading community. I think we could have a more helpful conversation if we talked more (and, in a good sense, critically) about the metanarratives we construct and employ without assuming that others share them or that one of them is authoritative enough to say “we have to deal” with it. The texts are authoritative for Christians, but the metanarratives we construct are not canon in the traditional sense.
Blessings,
Sarah Dylan Breuer
Apologies to Sarah.
Sarah, though you did not say in your comment that Christianity was morally repugnant, you did extend a certain sympathy to Andrew’s friend’s comment calling it right on target. That Andrew’s friend’s comment was brief and to the point you will understand how I assumed you shared his opinion. That you are a Christian should have kept me from leaping to that unfortunate conclusion. Please accept my apologies.
Also, I had not meant to imply that any criticism of the film was, in general, an implied criticism of Christianity, and that you were therefore, in particular, critical of Christianity. If I did so, please accept my apologies for that as well. I think we might both agree that Andrew’s friend’s comments critical of the film were also critical of Christianity. In charity to Andrew’s friend I believe he has confused an obsession with violence on the part of Christianity with some Christians’s obsession with the part the movie may or may not play in the lives of unbelievers.
The preaching of the Cross by the New Testament writers presenting the gory details was unnecessary , I believe, because the hearers were, for the most part, quite familar with violence, Roman justice and what a crucifixion and flogging signified. Real violence, not film or television violence. I had tried to make the point that Gibson may have been trying to reawaken a sense of horror in his audience using the technology available to him which St. Paul may not have needed to do.
I do not mean to suggest by referring to Samuel and Saul any particular reading, personal or universal. I do mean to suggest that when a person makes use of a text in support of (what seems to be?) their own (authoritatiive?) reading of that text and bringing to bear the whole of Israel’s Prophetic tradition to the issue, it is fair to bring into the discussion another text, also part of that Prophetic tradition. It is particularly true as our muse is this reading community. Respecting your earlier reply I believe I very much need to consider what you (and others) write. In that sense I really believe we need to deal with the texts which, as you say, are(and I agree) authoritative for Christians.
The text in 1 Samuel 15 is there and part of the Prophetic tradition to which you referred. In the context of a discussion dealing with, in part, Christianity’s obsession with pain and violence (Andrew’s friend’s comment) it has bearing on what is, or is not, too much attention to violence on the part of Christianity. Unless we are prepared to ignore it, I believe, we must deal with it.
Often it seems Christians want to treat the Scriptures as a sort of lunch buffet, eating all the sweets and treats and leaving untouched all the other things which are less palatable.
I appreciate your willingness to engage in this discussion. It is apparently not in you (or me) to withdraw from the field. I salute you.
Your brother and friend in Christ.
Alario
Andrew's friends reaction
I just saw The Passion movie last night after having read Andrew’s reaction to Alario’s question about how do we relate the magnitude of the price Christ paid for our sins. I’m not surprised at the reaction Andrew’s friend had, its not a difficult conclusion to come to after seeing the film. My personal opinion to the movie is that it went a bit to far in the depiction of the scourging and torture. And while there was so much in the movie that moved me to tears, so many well made points about how deeply Christ touched the lives of those around him, how life-changing his entire ministry and life was, they were ultimately drowned out by the relentless torture scenes.
This film has been talked about as being the best evangelical opportunity in ages, but I don’t see it as that. I tend to think as I read one movie review said, “its one movie that will never be as good as the book.” And even though the reviewer was making a small joke, I don’t think he could have been more on the point. We have the Word of God, and we have the example of Jesus’ life, which I would have loved to seen more of. The scene where He is washing the feet of his disciples was beautiful and I hope the movie would spur questions like “why was Christ washing their feet? Wasn’t he their teacher?” I think for the postmodern worldview, the idea of service is more powerful than any sermon, and certainly any film. Direct, meaningful experiences had with those people in our lives is what brings change in our lives. Christ is the purest example of that. Isn’t that what Christ asks us to pursue?
The film does one thing good for me and that is it starts conversations. We need more conversation about Christ with those who aren’t in relationship with Him. The modern church has done a great job of creating believers vs. non-believers, making conversation between the people strained from the beginning. The postmodern church, (I think, but as I’m just learning all of this myself am open to correction on all that I’m writing), is focusing on getting away from grouping people and allowing for those conversations to begin again. As this movie continues to create conversation, our role then would be to serve those we begin to speak with. Wouldn’t that be the basis for which we present the gospel?
Its a shift in where we begin to share our relationship with Christ. Instead of offering answers or our position on Christianity, we “wash their feet”. Whatever form that may take. The Passion was the ultimate service for all of us. And we shouldn’t forget how much pain He went through for us. Pastor Bob has written an article on the site (Don’t Forget to Grieve) discussing how little we truly meditate on Good Friday, feel that loss, as Christ’s disciples felt it, and that hinders our joy at his resurrection. I couldn’t agree more, and maybe in some way this film has shown me again how far Christ was willing to go for me. And that this Easter for me it won’t just be a happy service where people wear bright colored clothes and sing upbeat tunes. Maybe this Easter I’ll feel the true joy and love I felt when I first asked Christ to be my Lord, knowing that He conquered all for me, for all of us.
My response to the Passion movie and Alario’s question is “how can we serve postmodern?” Is how can we wash their feet? That is my question. I look forward to hearing more responses in this discussion, I desire to see Christ impact our world as do all the others participating on this site. it’s a question of service, and how that presents itself.
In love, Cameron
friendships suffering christianity, not Christ
I admit that I have not seen, nor plan to see Mel’s film. I thank Sarah for putting more gracefully and kindly the wrods that I’d have liked to said about offestting the bloodletting in the film with the inherent biblical tension of sacrificial system vs. merciful God (that’s how I see it).
I think I want to encourage everyone not just to see this film as an evangelical opportunity and a great way to start conversations with people in order to, for want of better phrase “sell them Jesus”. I think that life is richer when good friendships are encouraged and blossom naturally. You don’t have to be telling someone about how their life can be 66% better with Jesus. I myself need to work on more of the walking-with kind of friendships than choking many good moments of pure being with words about Jesus (my friendships need to stop suffering christianity in order that we can share Christ).
I think one of the essential things the emerging church must do is to emerge from the Christian Ghetto. This will involve viewing all people as worth having good friendships with (de-mythologising your Christian friendships in order to value all human life). This will involve talking about Christianity in other ways than has been done before. This, itself, may even involve appearing to water down the harsh bits of the gospel (as you understand it) to emphasize alternative perpsectives, and taking any such criticism that goes with it.
In so many ways, I suggest we best serve our friends (let’s transcend the ideological boxes and the words we use to describe someone’s cultural & historical outlook by simply being good friends to all we meet) and any other person who come our way by being good people, by being giving people, being caring people and being inclusive people. If message is authenticated and becomes (in some appropriate way) authoritative when it’s lived, then we must serve our friends by modelling the kind of Jesus that they might be able to choose to be (regardless of the impact upon our theology about humanity’s best intentions being unable to reach God - Acts 17 tells us Paul thought different). Let’s serve our friends by not selling them short and letting go of friendships after a few years or even a few decades.
This probably means turning what we knew as evangelism on its head (see also the comments made in Pastor Bob’s Learning to Grieve thread, which I must admit elicited criticism from me of western cultural empiricalism and globalisation, but the best words come from Bob and Alario about an Old Christian’s Class), as well us emphasising aspects of Christian Spirituality that don’t go down well in the conservative and safe havens of respectable churchgoing (service, giving, sacrificial love, doing thankless tasks and really not being thanked, among others).
Perhaps not so huge a change in corporate direction, but perhaps also a huge personal change in direction: repentance, if you will.
Take care. love Ken.
Atonement as a model of salvation
It seems to me that the Bible gives us many models of salvation or ‘salvation stories’, each of which fits the reality to some extent. For example the redemption model says that Jesus’ death bought us back for God, but it is does not say who he bought us from.
I think that the full, evangelical substitutionary atonement model is an attempt to unify many of the models into one. All that is required for Jesus to be the sacrificial Lamb of God is that he die. The sacrificial animals were not tortured, they were only killed. Thus some of the scriptures quoted in this thread do not, in fact, support the importance of Christ’s sufferings but only of his death.
However, adding redemption into the mix seems to require Jesus to pay a price comensurate with the value of what he is buying. The price he pays must be equal to the sum of all sin. In a sense he must pay the price of hell for 6 billion plus souls. Thus he must suffer immeasurably more than anyone else ever has and it becomes important to say that Jesus death was the worst ever and some preachers even add a demonic dimension to his sufferings in order to increase the suffering as Jesus was defeating principalities and and powers.
Another reason why the level of Jesus’ suffering is important to some christians is guilt. Guilt is a strong force in a number of branches of the church. There are different guilt trips that go with different theologies, whether it is the catholic guilt trip in some catholic churches based around obeying the church in order not to increase Jesus’ sufferings or the evangelical call to a response based on the enormity of what Christ has already suffered on your behalf.
Rationalist thinking runs right through the atonement doctrine so that it becomes important to balance the books. For instance, the idea of limited atonement is an attempt to make sure that each sin is paid for only once. From my perspective, that these doctrines are imperfect models of the true reality, this is like me hearing that light is a wave and building myself a tiny surfboard in order to ride it.
Which brings me to my next point. Models are chosen because in some aspects they are like the reality they model, but models need to be chosen in order to communicate something that can not be directly apprehended. I cannot ever see an atom. It may be useful for me to picture the solar system as a model for an atom, but I have to appreciate that it is only a model and not the thing itself. Likewise, the different models of salvation are not the thing in itself. In some aspects it is like the reality, but in essence it cannot be the same.
Atonement is a legal model. Redemption is a fiscal one. Being born again is a biological model. The parable of the sower is an agricultural one.
You will gather that I am not convinced that the legal aspect of substitutionary atonement is ‘the thing in itself’. If it were, we would not be required to respond to God. If a judge finds me guilty but pays my fine, I am off the hook whether I respond in appreciation to him or not. I do not believe salvation is primarily legal. I think there is good evidence that it is primarily relational and it is a communication to invoke in us, confidence that we can approach and relate to God in a way that was always available (to Abraham, for instance). I think that it is our judicial instincts that must be satisfied by Jesus’ death and not God’s. God demonstrates to us that he loves us by sending his son to die for us. Christ dies for us to bring us to God, not God to us.
The communication that is made is that sin is real and deadly, but it is genuinely dealt with and is not a barrier to approaching God.
I think that the communication of God is such that it appeals to, and satifies the objections of the whole man. Our conscience, our need for acceptance, our fears and desires etc. So, I think it is possible that Jesus suffering in some way overcomes emotional or guilt-based objections.
My concentration of relationship may also not be the thing in itself of course. salvation is a mystery that is communicated in many ways. I think that we need to explore each of those ways to get to a clearer picture.